[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200804021728.45823.oliver@neukum.org>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 17:28:44 +0200
From: Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Nigel Cunningham <ncunningham@...a.org.au>,
pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexey Starikovskiy <astarikovskiy@...e.de>,
David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] PM: Introduce new top level suspend and hibernation callbacks (rev. 6)
Am Mittwoch, 2. April 2008 17:13:11 schrieb Alan Stern:
> Basically yes. Subsystems and drivers are allowed to keep devices
> suspended if they were suspended before the system went to sleep.
> Remember, the purpose of the resume method is to let drivers know that
> the system is now awake, not to force them to put their devices into a
> high-power state.
Well, sometimes it is exactly that what we desire, eg. as a side effect
of lsusb. Should the callbacks have different semantics depending on
the reason you call them? And how should that information be transferred?
Regards
Oliver
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists