From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: RFC: additional event for pm_notifier Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 22:33:07 +0200 Message-ID: <201003312233.07482.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <201003262231.27156.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: 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: Sebastian Ott Cc: linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 31 March 2010, Sebastian Ott wrote: > > On Fri, 26 Mar 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Friday 26 March 2010, Sebastian Ott wrote: > > > > > > hi, > > > > > > i've got that working, but after some more thinking > > > i really didn't like that approach - in short, if we do that, > > > hibernation on s390 will allways be bound to the plattform mode > > > (with certain devices we will crash in our restore callbacks > > > if we haven't previously enabled the hw-feature, which those > > > devices use) > > > > > > and to the your-gun-your-foot argument - if someone tests > > > hibernation on s390 using the reboot mode he sure cannot > > > expect the potential panic, depending on the involved devices > > > > Well, on x86 using ACPI the reboot and shutdown modes only work by fortunate > > conincidence, so to speak (if at all). > > > > That said, your argument is reasonable. > > > > > do you absolutely oppose against the idea of a new notifier event? > > > > Yes, I do. To the extent that I'd rather change the entire design so that the > > "hibernation modes" would be platform-dependent. > > ok. i implemented a hook in arch/s390 Thanks a lot. Rafael