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 23:05:11 +0200 Message-ID: <20070413210511.GI28264@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> <1176377017.5764.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> <461E6E07.5020408@gmail.com> 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: <461E6E07.5020408@gmail.com> 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: Dmitry Krivoschekov Cc: Johannes Berg , linux-pm List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Hi! > > 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. > = > Actually, I personally two hands up for adding the flexibility, > but you should define what is supposed to do on this level and > what is don't, or not desirable. > = > For example, I'd like to enter back to suspend mode > right from "activate" stage, because I've woken up just > to update some data and I do not want to resume all devices > for that, is it ok for "activate"? No, I do not think we can do that w/o major surgery. -- = (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blo= g.html