Hi! > > swsusp/powerdown and swsusp/reboot cases should really only require > > save_processor_state and friends filled by architecture... And at > > least i386 and x86-64 (and possibly ia64) will have basically same > > code for all the stuff except save_processor_state and friends... > > Eugh.... No. Maybe you can get away without the arch callbackcs on x86, > but there are a bunch of things that need to be properly saved/restored > even for basic swsusp that don't fit in the driver model. (Besides, you > don't even call device_power_down, so the stuffs that are sysdev's > aren't dealt with properly neither). Well, we might want to fix not calling device_power_down... > > > We could provide an "example" default implementation that does only > > > swsusp that an arch can "drop in" if you want, but archs have to > > > implement the various "inline" callbacks anyway (save_processor_state & > > > friends). > > > > ...aha, so you know that much code can be shared :-). Yes, "example" > > implementation should work okay. Use "example" implementation, add > > custom save_processor_state, and you should have working > > swsusp/powerdown... > > I don't care a bit about sharing code in that area. "How much" amounts > to 3 function calls, so honestly, that is not an issue. I agree with > Patrick here, the toplevel enter_state() function should probably just > be arch code. Well, if we are talking about single function (enter_state) being moved to arch code... that should be okay. It is really simple function. Pavel
