Re: [PATCH v2] rework pm_ops pm_disk_modes foo

[Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>]

Hi!

> > Is the pm_disk_mode still bitmask? If yes, say so.
> > 
> > ...no, it does not appear so.
> 
> No, I should have explained. Since the prepare/enter/finish callbacks
> aren't told what the chosen pm_disk_mode is, there is no point in
> allowing multiple since they can't differentiate. Changing that is
> something that could be done, but doesn't seem necessary since ACPI is
> the only user.

I guess we'll have more such users in future.

> > Please don't do this. We want to keep the "use platform if available"
> > behaviour. [Changing platform->shutdown is really _big_ change,
> > independend from any cleanups, and it needs to go separate at the very
> > least. It will break some machines.]
> 
> As far as I can tell "use platform if available" means "use platform
> when ACPI pm_ops are present" since that's the only pm_ops that has
> platform. And notice that I change the default when pm_ops are
> registered.

i did not look _that_ closely. As long as platform is still default on
acpi systems, we are okay.

> However, using PM_DISK_PLATFORM by default w/o pm_ops support is *wrong*
> as I explained previously since it leads to user-interface
> inconsistencies, the user can switch *away* from platform but *not back*
> to platform.

No argument about that.



-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html