On Wed, 2004-11-03 at 19:31 -0700, David Brownell wrote:
> On Wednesday 03 November 2004 16:22, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > On Thu, 2004-11-04 at 01:22 +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > [Hmm, and in_suspend() is probably better name, consistent with
> > > in_atomic() and in_interrupt().]
> >
> > Yah.
>
> I posted a sketch of how to do subtree suspends a while back,
> which had the nice side consequence that this would work:
>
> static inline int in_suspend(struct device *dev)
> {
> return !list_empty(&dev->power.entry);
> }
>
> Actually, we should need only one function for in_suspend()
> and in_resume().
>
> I hope that nobody's assuming devices only suspend as part of
> system sleep state transitions ... one device tree might be
> suspending while another (or its parent!) is fully active...
Yes, but as far as I'm concerned, in_suspend() should be
in_system_suspend() (same for resume) and I think we shouldn't rely on
the lists. For example, on STD, we should have in_system_suspend()
return 1 when the processes have been put in the refrigerator, that is
before we start walking the device-tree.
Ben.
