On Thursday 28 October 2004 15:49, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > You enter a state, you always go back to state 0 (resumed) before > > entering another one. Period. That's the basis of why I got save_state() > > removed in the first place, remember ? Hmm, I was thinking that we had already discussed this as letting _drivers_ choose whether or not to fully resume. When suspending, it gets told the target sleep state, and the DRIVER is responsible for sorting out what that means for the hardware state and capabilities. This gets to the subtree-suspend issues too; I think there does need to be a designated "active" state (0) that the interior nodes (hubs, bridges, etc) must be in before Linux changes child state. > > Just read the paper David did summarizing our discussions, I think it's > > pretty clear the kind of callbacks we need. > > We really should put it somewhere in Documentation/ so this kind of > discussion does not repeat... I'll send along an updated version as soon as some of the more recent points get settled. That was just a first whack, and pretty much everyone here has disagreed today with at least some of what's in that draft ... ;) - Dave
