Hi! > > Didn't we discuss already the fact that this mix of selective & system > > suspend was totally unacceptable and should be split in different > > calls ? We _MUST_ provide different selectors to suspend() if we ever > > want to really support selective suspend (the current stuff or writing a > > random number to /sys/*/power/state is crap). > > This must be resolved. As things stand the USB subsystem has only a > single suspend() callback for device drivers, with no way to distinguish > between selective and system suspend. USB should really pass down suspend_message_t parameter it got from higher levels. > Should SELECTIVE_SUSPEND be added as a PM message type? Then calls That's one possibility. Or we might just have a flag for that. Pavel -- People were complaining that M$ turns users into beta-testers... ...jr ghea gurz vagb qrirybcref, naq gurl frrz gb yvxr vg gung jnl!
