From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965584AbbCPTRt (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Mar 2015 15:17:49 -0400 Received: from down.free-electrons.com ([37.187.137.238]:36624 "EHLO mail.free-electrons.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933661AbbCPTRp (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Mar 2015 15:17:45 -0400 Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 20:17:42 +0100 From: Alexandre Belloni To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Pavel Machek , Boris Brezillon , Nicolas Ferre , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: PM: knowing the system state in the device callback Message-ID: <20150316191742.GI4560@piout.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, I'm trying to get rid of at91_suspend_entering_slow_clock() which is exposing the platform suspend_state_t to the devices. From what I understand, whenever suspend_state_t is PM_SUSPEND_MEM or PM_SUSPEND_STANDBY, the pm_message_t passed to the device driver is always PM_EVENT_SUSPEND. The requirement is to know whether we are going to cut the master clock and in that case, avoid calling enable_irq_wake() because we will not be able to wakeup from the device. Is there a better way to do that? Or should I implement a similar function in the pm core (which I guess would already be there if really needed)? Regards, -- Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com