[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1177687638.3565.42.camel@johannes.berg>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 17:27:18 +0200
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
suspend2-devel@...ts.suspend2.net, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>, Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-pm <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] driver power operations (was Re: suspend2 merge)
On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 17:20 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> I think we can use 'stages' and pass them as arguments to the functions.
>
> In that case we can have two callbacks for the hibernation (I'd prefer to say
> 'hibernation' instead of 'suspend to disk' from now on), one 'quiesce' callback
> and one 'activate' callback that can be called many times in one
> snapshot/restore cycle with different arguments, for example:
But you're not proposing to add suspend/resume to this interface too, I
hope :)
> quiesce(PREPARE) -- that may be needed for drivers that allocate much memory
> before quiescing devices (if any)
> ...
> quiesce(PRE_SNAPSHOT)
> ...
> quiesce(PRE_SNAPSHOT_IRQ_OFF)
> ...
> activate(POST_SNAPSHOT_IRQ_OFF)
> ...
> activate(POST_SNAPSHOT)
> ...
> activate(FINISH)
I'm still not sure I like having to switch on the argument for every
implementation. Is it really worth it?
johannes
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (191 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists