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

Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-04-06T09:41:31Z

On Friday, 6 April 2007 10:48, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 02:17 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > > Not sure, it might be different for different suspend methods. We
> > > actually need to do some platform-function stuff inbetween, and if we
> > > ever want some S4-like state then we might need to do it differently.
> >
> > Ah, OK
>
> Keep in mind that I don't know that yet, and am not totally sure I ever
> will implement something S4-like (it would probably require kexec or
> similar tricks). Also, these handlers are not even called fro the
> suspend to disk case right now (and documented that way.)
>
> I will repost with some BUG_ON() assertions, but should I change it to
> have 4 handlers before_irq_off/after_irq_off/before_irq_on/after_irq_on
> instead of the two I have now?

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.

[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.]

BTW, please remember to update the SNAPSHOT_S2RAM ioctl accordingly (well,
I think we should move the common code to a separate function).

Greetings,
Rafael