CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.
On 5/19/20 7:24 PM, Anchal Agarwal wrote:
>
> +enum suspend_modes {
> + NO_SUSPEND = 0,
> + XEN_SUSPEND,
> + PM_SUSPEND,
> + PM_HIBERNATION,
> +};
> +
> +/* Protected by pm_mutex */
> +static enum suspend_modes suspend_mode = NO_SUSPEND;
> +
> +bool xen_suspend_mode_is_xen_suspend(void)
> +{
> + return suspend_mode == XEN_SUSPEND;
> +}
> +
> +bool xen_suspend_mode_is_pm_suspend(void)
> +{
> + return suspend_mode == PM_SUSPEND;
> +}
> +
> +bool xen_suspend_mode_is_pm_hibernation(void)
> +{
> + return suspend_mode == PM_HIBERNATION;
> +}
> +
I don't see these last two used anywhere. Are you, in fact,
distinguishing between PM suspend and hibernation?
Yes, I am. Unless there is a better way to distinguish at runtime which I haven't figured out yet.
The initial design was to have separate states for separate modes. Currently, PM_HIBERNATION is handled
by !xen_suspend . However, if any case arises where we need to set the suspend_mode, its available via
this interface. This is basically to support PM* ops via ACPI path. Since, PM_SUSPEND is not handled by the series
the code piece can be removed and added later. Any comments?
(I would also probably shorten the name a bit, perhaps
xen_is_pv/pm_suspend()?)
Sure. Will fix in my next round of post.
-boris
Thanks,
Anchal
