Re: [patch/rft 2.6.17-rc2] swsusp resume must not device_suspend()

Pavel Machek
2006-04-27T08:16:51Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 860 bytes --]

Hi!

> > I'd put it differently. It's not a poor-man's way at all; passing that
> > information in hardware is the correct solution. A regular resume would
> > keep the information there too (from STR or standby). We don't want to
> > have swsusp piling on special cases.
>
> Okay, I take it back. Yes, putting the hardware into the appropriate
> state is the right thing to do.
>
> On the other hand, it might not be so easy to know what that state is.
> Perhaps the decision should be left up to the device driver. If drivers
> were told the difference between "FREEZE to prepare for creating a memory
> snapshot" and "FREEZE to prepare for restoring a memory image" then they
> could do the right thing always.

Add flags field to pm_message_t, please. There, you have way to pass
down that ino while staying back-compatible.

--
Thanks, Sharp!

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 0 bytes --]