From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] pm_ops: add system quiesce/activate hooks Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 12:45:58 +0200 Message-ID: <200704121245.59594.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <1175810054.3489.34.camel@johannes.berg> <1176367352.5764.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20070412101653.GB26473@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: <20070412101653.GB26473@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: linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org Cc: Johannes Berg , linux-pm , Pavel Machek List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Thursday, 12 April 2007 12:16, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > = > > > I doubt your reasoning is cogent enough. If you add such a global thi= ng, > > > you should prove it, or clearly explain what is the thing for. > > > I don't believe that it's not possible to solve that decrementer case > > > without this change. Can't you add appropriate platform_device which > > > would register early enough, to meet that timing requirement when it > > > gets suspended? > > = > > That's would be absolutely disgusting... (relying on magic ordering of > > platform devices). > = > Adding platform hook to disable interrupts just because we need one > platform device last is not nice, either. (And does decrementer even > need to come last?) > = > Anyway, platform devices may need specific ordering on more than power > pc, so perhaps we should just make ordering more stable so that > relying on it is no longer a hack? I second that, although I think it also would be a global change. Greetings, Rafael