On Thursday, 27 of March 2008, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 02:23 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thursday, 27 of March 2008, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > >
> > > > > There is absolutely no point getting a second struct anymore.
> > > >
> > > > I obviously disagree with that opinion, so please elaborate.
> > >
> > > Well, what does it bring you ? Why can't it be one struct ? To save
> > > space in the data area ?
> >
> > Mostly, but not only that.
> >
> > There are users of 'struct pm_ops' that aren't even supposed to define the
> > _noirq callbacks (device types and device classes), so I thought it would be
> > better to introduce a separate _noirq struct after all.
>
> Make sense... USB has no use of noirq for example.
Well, FWIW, we can also do something like this:
struct pm_ops {
int (*prepare)(struct device *dev);
void (*complete)(struct device *dev);
int (*suspend)(struct device *dev);
int (*resume)(struct device *dev);
int (*freeze)(struct device *dev);
int (*thaw)(struct device *dev);
int (*poweroff)(struct device *dev);
int (*restore)(struct device *dev);
};
struct pm_ext_ops {
struct pm_ops base;
int (*suspend_noirq)(struct device *dev);
int (*resume_noirq)(struct device *dev);
int (*freeze_noirq)(struct device *dev);
int (*thaw_noirq)(struct device *dev);
int (*poweroff_noirq)(struct device *dev);
int (*restore_noirq)(struct device *dev);
};
and use 'struct pm_ext_ops' for the entities that may need to implement the
_noirq callbacks. This way we'll avoid the duplication of "_noirq" in the code
pointed to by Alex and there will be one "pm" pointer per bus type, device
type, device class, etc.
Thoughts?
Thanks,
Rafael
--
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
