From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: Problems with PM_FREEZE Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 00:14:07 +0200 Message-ID: <200509290014.07874.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <200509282356.07108.rjw@sisk.pl> <20050928220138.GL2506@elf.ucw.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20050928220138.GL2506@elf.ucw.cz> Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.osdl.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.osdl.org To: Pavel Machek Cc: linux-pm@lists.osdl.org, Nigel Cunningham List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Thursday, 29 of September 2005 00:01, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > > > Yes, I've been thinking about it for some time. It seems to me we could do > > > > this with the help of an additional field in pm_message_t. > > > > > > The problem that no pm_message_t is passed to resume routines. > > > > Yes, shame on me (I desperately need some sleep). > > > > How about calling *_suspend() twice, first before the image is created > > and second after it has been created but before *_resume() are called, > > with the second call only telling the driver the next resume will be > > resume-during-suspend? > > Could we do it properly and pass pm_message_t to resume()? Yes, it is > more work, but no, we don't need hacks there. Sure. Passing pm_message_t to resume() is much better. Greetings, Rafael