Re: [RFC/RFT][PATCH -mm 4/4] PM: Rework struct platform_suspend_operations

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sun, 2007-06-24 at 22:44 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

> There is no reason why the .prepare() and .finish() methods in 'struct
> platform_suspend_operations' should take any arguments, since architectures
> don't use these methods' argument in any practically meaningful way (ie. either
> the target system sleep state is conveyed to the platform by .set_target(), or
> there is only one suspend state supported and it is indicated to the PM core by
> .valid(), or .prepare() and .finish() aren't defined at all).  There also is
> no reason why .finish() should return any result.

Nice cleanups, I'd wanted to do them when I was doing all that pm_ops
stuff but then didn't get around. Good stuff.
 
> --- linux-2.6.22-rc5.orig/arch/powerpc/platforms/52xx/mpc52xx_pm.c	2007-06-24 20:45:21.000000000 +0200
> +++ linux-2.6.22-rc5/arch/powerpc/platforms/52xx/mpc52xx_pm.c	2007-06-24 21:07:41.000000000 +0200

> -int mpc52xx_pm_prepare(suspend_state_t state)
> +static int mpc52xx_pm_prepare(void)
>  {
> -	if (state != PM_SUSPEND_STANDBY)
> -		return -EINVAL;
> -

Hm. I thought I'd told them to leave that out before it went in. Oh
well.

johannes

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


[Index of Archives]     [Linux IBM ACPI]     [Linux Power Management]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux Laptop]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Resources]

  Powered by Linux