On Monday, 25 June 2007 23:28, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Sun, 2007-06-24 at 22:40 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > + * @set_target: Tell the platform which system sleep state is going to be > > + * entered. The information passed to @set_target should be disregarded > > + * by the platform as soon as @finish() is executed and if @prepare() > > + * fails. > > + * This callback is optional. However, if it is implemented, the > > + * argument passed to @prepare(), @enter and @finish() must be ignored. > > I don't understand the point in mandating that then the argument to > enter() is to be ignored, why bother? It doesn't look as though we can > possibly do anything with the semantics here that would mean the state > set by set_target is different to the state passed to enter(), can we? In principle we can't, but I think that it should be "either, or". Either the platform implements set_target() and uses the value provided by it, or it uses the argument passed to the other functions. Alternatively, I could write that the argument passed to .enter() etc. is guaranteed to be the same as the one passed to .set_target(), but I didn't want to say that. :-) Greetings, Rafael -- "Premature optimization is the root of all evil." - Donald Knuth - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
