![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Tue, 2005-06-07 at 14:29 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > What PM toplevel core changes are you referring to? I've look over the > > changes to pm_ops and they seem to make sense. Still I almost wonder if > > we should make the entire thing arch specific code, and then have this > > code call things like device_suspend(). If mac hardware required that > > many new hooks, then other platforms might require even more. > > That is exactly the debate. Patrick thinks the whole thing should be > arch code and kernel/power/* just provices "library" routines to call > (like the freezer, swsusp stuff, etc...), Pavel wants to share as much > code as possible in a single place. > > I have no real strong preference, I tend to be a bit more on Patrick's > side here. I can do either way, but we need to decide. On one case, I > would do a patch removing most of kernel/power/main.c and disk.c (they > are mostly redundant anyway) and replacing with a simple mecanism where > the arch provides a table of state names + function to call for sysfs. > On the other case, just merge my patch adding all the new hooks. > > Ben. I'd tend to agree with Pat then. The original pm_ops seem to be designed around ACPI and after looking at the spec I don't think they're correct. (e.g. it looks like _PTS and _GTS should be run after device_suspend() instead of before, so *prepare may not be needed). In short, this tends to be tricky. It's probably best to have platforms handle it on their own with kernel/power as a library. Thanks, Adam - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-06-07 05:12 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||