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 00:49:34 +0200 Message-ID: <200704140049.34981.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <1175810054.3489.34.camel@johannes.berg> <200704140018.07367.rjw@sisk.pl> <1176502807.7052.136.camel@johannes.berg> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1176502807.7052.136.camel@johannes.berg> 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: Johannes Berg Cc: linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, Pavel Machek List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Saturday, 14 April 2007 00:20, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Sat, 2007-04-14 at 00:18 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > = > > Technically, they may be not needed by (u)swsusp, but since (u)swsusp a= lready > > uses pm_ops in the platform mode, it formally should use these new hook= s in > > the platform mode too. = > = > Sure. I'll do that. > = > > Otherwise it won't make sense to use pm_ops in > > (u)swsusp at all, IMHO. > = > IMHO it never has and never will be, it's just to make it all fit the > ACPI model ;) I'm not against changing that, as you might have noticed. :-) Greetings, Rafael