From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] pm_ops: add system quiesce/activate hooks Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 23:00:23 +0200 Message-ID: <20070413210023.GH28264@elf.ucw.cz> References: <1175810054.3489.34.camel@johannes.berg> <1176306867.19348.4.camel@johannes.berg> <461D494D.3080808@gmail.com> <1176367352.5764.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20070412101653.GB26473@elf.ucw.cz> <1176374847.7052.47.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: <1176374847.7052.47.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! > > 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?) > = > But the hack is classifying the decrementer as a platform device in the > first place. And then we'd still need to have one platform device and > one sysdev since we want to wake up the decrementer before enabling > IRQs Can decrementer be waked a little later? = > but set it to a high value before disabling IRQs. Or we'd need some sort > of special foo device that has hooks both before and after and comes > last/first, just for one user? Have two devices, then. > Besides, we can always rewrite it later when somebody introduces a foo > device that fits above model. Since this patch essentially changes > nothing, I'd been hoping to get it into .22 so we can finally start No. Hacks like this are impossible to get rid of. Pavel -- = (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blo= g.html