From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] pm_ops: add system quiesce/activate hooks Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 00:16:52 +0200 Message-ID: <20070413221652.GR28264@elf.ucw.cz> References: <1175810054.3489.34.camel@johannes.berg> <1176499086.7052.124.camel@johannes.berg> <20070413213349.GL28264@elf.ucw.cz> <200704140009.33298.rjw@sisk.pl> <1176502406.7052.134.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: <1176502406.7052.134.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@lists.linux-foundation.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Sat 2007-04-14 00:13:26, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Sat, 2007-04-14 at 00:09 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > = > > Hmm, I missed that. :-( > > = > > I think we need to make things clear: Either we add the additional hook= s to > > pm_ops in which case they should be taken into account in the (u)swsusp= code > > too, or we don't add them at all. > = > I can do that. I don't care one bit since I will never use pm_ops for > suspend to disk anyway. Please don't do that just yet. I see ppc as being really special here. Normally, preparation for s2ram and preparation for snapshot is really similar, but you have exception to that rule. I do think clean solution is redesigning plaform/sysdevs to have stable order. If you added one platform and one sysdev, would that _work_? AFAICT you say it would and Ben says it would not. (Lets leave uglyness debate for later). Pavel -- = (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blo= g.html