On Tue, 2004-11-02 at 13:17 +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > > > What we need for APM is freeze. > > > > > > OK, then so far as I'm concerned there's no longer > > > any question about _needing_ "freeze". > > > > > > Should that just be a new suspend_state_t value > > > > Hrm... not sure what we ever called suspend_state_t ... I need to dig > > Pavel proposals. > > > > The fact that all suspend() callbacks imply freeze, which is a drivers > > state, makes me think that freeze is just what ... suspend() means. That > > is, we can get rid of the "freeze" semantic altogether if we consider > > that the pm_message contains a suggested "abstract" power state. suspend > > with state "on" would mean freeze. > > As I said, I do not agree here. "Prepare to halt" does not need to > stop DMAs, for example. Well, it's better to do so... cleaner, won't cost us much. Ben.
