From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] pm_ops: add system quiesce/activate hooks Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 00:47:56 +0200 Message-ID: <200704140047.56677.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <1175810054.3489.34.camel@johannes.berg> <200704140009.33298.rjw@sisk.pl> <1176503122.5764.109.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1176503122.5764.109.camel@localhost.localdomain> 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: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Cc: Johannes Berg , linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, Pavel Machek List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Saturday, 14 April 2007 00:25, Benjamin Herrenschmidt 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. > > = > > Well, there also is one more solution. Namely, we can add the hooks to= pm_ops > > and make (u)swsusp use something else instead of pm_ops, but that would= require > > some more consideration. > = > Well, what would be nice would be if swsusp wasn't just such a gross > contraption completely bypassing the rest of the suspend/resume > framework... IMHO, swsusp is a really special case, especially when it doesn't use pm_op= s. On a PC it may look like a "typical" suspend/resume operation, but I think = it generally is not one. Although we try to use as many pieces of the framewo= rk in swsusp as we can, we're still running into problems with that. There are just too many _practical_ differences. Greetings, Rafael