Hi. On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 01:17 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Monday, 14 of April 2008, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > Hi Rafael etc. > > Hi, > > > On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 08:47 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > > Well, I'm not sure and I'm not going to introduce the change right now, after > > > > the paches have been included in -mm. > > > > > > > > That would require quite some changes in the core code that I'd prefer to > > > > avoid for now. We can do something like this in a separate patch series after > > > > the present one settles down a bit. > > > > > > I disagree. > > > > > > Doing it later would introduce yet another major semantic change. > > > > > > I think we should get it right now. There's no hurry in pushing things > > > especially if they aren't quite right. > > > > > > The ability for prepare() callbacks to sync with userland, > > > request_firmware, etc... is an important feature that's been needed for > > > some time imho. > > > > > > Ben. > > > > I agree. These calls have already been changing far too often in > > mainline. I know it's all been necessary but please, can we try to make > > one set of changes and just get it right this time? > > Sorry, what exactly has been changing too often? Device suspend callbacks?? > They haven't changed since pm_message_t was introduced. I'm thinking of driver models calls for both hibernation and suspend to ram, both names and semantics as to what is called when. Regards, Nigel -- 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
