From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [PATCH] pm_ops: add irq enable/disable hooks Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 21:19:03 +0200 Message-ID: <20070406191903.GD2583@elf.ucw.cz> References: <1175810054.3489.34.camel@johannes.berg> <200704060217.50560.rjw@sisk.pl> <1175849322.3489.64.camel@johannes.berg> <200704061141.31677.rjw@sisk.pl> <1175852652.3489.67.camel@johannes.berg> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1175852652.3489.67.camel@johannes.berg> 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 List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Hi! > > Frankly, I'm not sure. > > = > > For practical purposes the BUG_ON() assertions will suffice, so I think= you > > can keep the two handlers. I'd change the names, though, to something > > like quiesce() and activate(), for example. > = > Sure. > = > > [Hm, it feels more appropriate to define them for all platforms and mak= e them > > call local_irq_save() on the platforms that don't need to do anything m= ore.] > = > Is there much point in that? It seems to make implementing new pm_ops a > bit more complex seeing that nobody but us seems to require such a thing > yet. And why do _you_ need it? Unfortunately I do not know what the decrementer is...? Pavel -- = (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blo= g.html