From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT][PATCH -mm 1/4] PM: Introduce set_target method in pm_ops Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 10:55:13 +0200 Message-ID: <20070626085513.GD4594@elf.ucw.cz> References: <200706242239.05678.rjw@sisk.pl> <200706242240.40476.rjw@sisk.pl> <1182806886.6644.4.camel@johannes.berg> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1182806886.6644.4.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: Len Brown , linux acpi , pm list List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Mon 2007-06-25 23:28:06, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Sun, 2007-06-24 at 22:40 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > + * @set_target: Tell the platform which system sleep state is going to be > > + * entered. The information passed to @set_target should be disregarded > > + * by the platform as soon as @finish() is executed and if @prepare() > > + * fails. > > + * This callback is optional. However, if it is implemented, the > > + * argument passed to @prepare(), @enter and @finish() must be ignored. > > I don't understand the point in mandating that then the argument to > enter() is to be ignored, why bother? It doesn't look as though we can > possibly do anything with the semantics here that would mean the state > set by set_target is different to the state passed to enter(), can we? That's what 4/4 does, AFAICT. -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html