On Friday 26 May 2006 05:06, David Brownell wrote: > On Tuesday 02 May 2006 9:12 am, Patrick Mochel wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 12:41:28PM -0700, David Brownell wrote: > > > > > There does seem to be agreement that the current FREEZE invocation is not > > > sufficient. I'm looking at a slightly different solution now ... one which > > > unfortunately involves changing drivers, but can indeed allow swsusp resume > > > paths to do the right thing (instead of what it does now). > > > > It's Ok if it involves a drive change, so long as its an optional change, which > > means that it shouldn't affect the interface very much (i.e. the calling > > convention). That's why it'd be good to augment and/or modify pm_message_t > > to implement the changes, so we wouldn't have to change every single driver > > again.. > > I'll post more patches after I sort out some oddness -- why is swsusp_suspend() > leaving preempt_count() == 1, code I was nowhere near? -- but the patch appended > here shows what I'm pursuing. Same calling convention, new PRETHAW message > that "pm-naive" drivers (most of them!) can handle just like FREEZE. Frankly I thought you'd add a new member to pm_message_t, to be ignored by the drivers that didn't care. That said I also see the point in what you're doing. :-) Greetings, Rafael
