From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [PATCH] pm_ops: add irq enable/disable hooks Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 02:17:50 +0200 Message-ID: <200704060217.50560.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <1175810054.3489.34.camel@johannes.berg> <200704060202.13597.rjw@sisk.pl> <1175818158.3489.47.camel@johannes.berg> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1175818158.3489.47.camel@johannes.berg> 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: Johannes Berg Cc: linux-pm , Pavel Machek List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Friday, 6 April 2007 02:09, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 02:02 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > = > > Well, this seems to be more natural ("if you want to do something befor= e/after > > disabling the IRQs, define it" instead of "you can do something instead= of > > calling local_irq_save(), but please remember to disable the IRQs yours= elf > > in that case"). > = > Heh. Yeah, I guess. It just didn't seem worth it. I personally don't > care, I just need to be able to get at those spots. > = > > BTW, it need not be in pm_ops (actually, why should it be there?). > > Alternatively, you can define something like arch_prepare_for_disabling= _irqs() > > and/or arch_prepare_device_power_down() that will be empty on x86, for > > example. > = > Not sure, it might be different for different suspend methods. We > actually need to do some platform-function stuff inbetween, and if we > ever want some S4-like state then we might need to do it differently. Ah, OK Rafael