From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Brownell Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] pm_ops: add system quiesce/activate hooks Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 09:32:41 -0700 Message-ID: <200704120932.41497.david-b@pacbell.net> References: <1175810054.3489.34.camel@johannes.berg> <1176377017.5764.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200704121703.16206.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200704121703.16206.rjw@sisk.pl> 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: linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org Cc: Johannes Berg , Pavel Machek List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Thursday 12 April 2007 8:03 am, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thursday, 12 April 2007 13:23, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > Why not give this added flexibility ? Archs who don't care don't need to > > bother and it will make us happy... it's not like we are about to -add- > > burden to other architectures. > = > Well, I think it would be reasonable to add the quiesce()/activate() hook= s for > all of the above reasons. = Makes sense to me. Though I'd rather see pm_set_ops() patch the default hooks than expect all platforms to change ... that would shrink the size of the patch adding these, as well as the potential cost of removing them. > However, once we've done that, it'll be quite = > difficult to remove them, so we should better be sure they are really rea= lly > needed and there's no other way to implement what you need (or all of the > alternative ways are far worse). In general I think too much of the way PM "works" now is a bit more due to convenient side effects than by clear intent. So while I agree that adding hooks should be done with care, this one certain seems to be a step in the right direction. - Dave