Re: [PATCH] pm_ops: add irq enable/disable hooks

Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-04-06T10:02:41Z

On Friday, 6 April 2007 11:44, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 11:41 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > Frankly, I'm not sure.
> >
> > For practical purposes the BUG_ON() assertions will suffice, so I think you
> > can keep the two handlers. I'd change the names, though, to something
> > like quiesce() and activate(), for example.
>
> Sure.
>
> > [Hm, it feels more appropriate to define them for all platforms and make them
> > call local_irq_save() on the platforms that don't need to do anything more.]
>
> Is there much point in that? It seems to make implementing new pm_ops a
> bit more complex seeing that nobody but us seems to require such a thing
> yet.

That's why I said "it feels". :-)

Still, we can, for example, define default_quiesce() and default_activate()
that will only call local_irq_save/restore() to be used by the architectures
that don't need anything more etc.

Greetings,
Rafael