From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Brownell Subject: Re: [PATCH] implement pm_ops.valid for everybody Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 17:54:12 -0700 Message-ID: <200703231754.13965.david-b@pacbell.net> References: <200703221344.l2MDi2Q9007989@olwen.urbana.css.mot.com> <200703232139.38721.rjw@sisk.pl> <20070324000147.GC14427@elf.ucw.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20070324000147.GC14427@elf.ucw.cz> Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Pavel Machek Cc: alexey.y.starikovskiy@intel.com, dirk.behme@de.bosch.com, linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, johannes@sipsolutions.net, nico@cam.org, ben@simtec.co.uk, g.liakhovetski@gmx.de List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Friday 23 March 2007 5:01 pm, Pavel Machek wrote: > > tell drivers what to do. Say we use something like PMSG_STANDBY and now > = > We would add another field to that struct, distingushing "mem" and > "standby". = Just for the record: I continue to oppose growing pm_message_t.