Messages in this thread |  | | | From | Frans Pop <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH V2] au1xmmc: dev_pm_ops conversion | | Date | Sat, 25 Jul 2009 22:21:42 +0200 |
| |
On Saturday 25 July 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > Was suspend to disk tested? It requires freeze()/thaw(). > > > > > > Is that a regression introduced by this patch then? If so, many > > > more of the recent dev_pm_ops conversion patches would need to be > > > revisited. > > Yes, they would. In general, you'd probably want to do something like > this: > > static struct dev_pm_ops au1xmmc_pmops = { > .resume = au1xmmc_resume, > .suspend = au1xmmc_suspend, > .freeze = au1xmmc_resume, > .thaw = au1xmmc_suspend, > .restore = au1xmmc_resume, > .poweroff = au1xmmc_suspend, > }; > > but in this particular case it's probably better to define separate > callbacks for .freeze() and .thaw() at least. > > During hibernation we call .freeze() and .thaw() before and after > creating the image, respectively, and then .poweroff() is called right > after the image has been saved. During resume .freeze() is called > after the image has been loaded and before the control goes to the > image kernel, which then calls .restore().
Yes, I see that in drivers/base/platform.c (legacy) .suspend resp. .resume also got called for those cases? Ouch :-(
I've added others who've submitted dev_pm_ops patches in CC.
> I'll fix up the floppy and hp-wmi patches.
Note that those are already in mainline, as is pcspkr.
Thanks, FJP -- 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/
|  |