[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CADHgK6vzagyELYGnVoHvfnK9G57-NSycOaKsNQ53rnU1pOwn=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 09:28:28 -0700
From: Sebastian Capella <sebastian.capella@...aro.org>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel.garcia@...e-electrons.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] PM / Hibernate: no kernel_power_off when pm_power_off NULL
On 15 April 2014 14:18, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz> wrote:
> On Tue 2014-04-15 21:54:53, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> What I'm basically saying is that I see no reason for ARM to do something
>> different to what x86 does.
>>
>> What is pretty clear to me is that ARM is compatible with x86, which is
>> compatible with kernel/reboot.c, and it's the hibernate code which is
>> the odd one out.
>
> I'm pretty sure the original code did not return. Anyway, the best
> solution, given how many platforms are out there, would be to
>
> a) document that it should not return
>
> b) fix hibernation to handle the returning case, anyway.
Thanks Russell and Pavel!
This sounds fine to me. Any objections?
Thanks!
Sebastian
--
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