Hi! > > Okay, you _can_ do > > > > suspend whole tree but disk and video > > freeze disk and video > > create snapshot > > unfreeze disk and video > > I really think that's totalyl unnecessary. I agree; current system works okay. > At most, you could make the "save_state()" also say "stop listening to > external stuff" for devices that otherwise do things on their own. That's > not a "freeze" - the device would still obey commands coming from the > host - and it would need a "unsave" logic when a suspend fails, but it > doesn't change the fundamental "save means _save_, not suspend" logic. > > And we currently don't have _anything_ like that. Playing games with > sending different commands down the "suspend()" thing is not ever going to > work. Drivers are going to do it wrong. We really need to add a > "save_state()" callback, and it needs to be called that, so that people > realize that they should not suspend in it. Well, it is right that separation as you suggest is possible... but it is quite different from current system. And if someone does suspend (instead of freeze) -- no harm is done -- it just takes longer. Actually for most devices, suspend and freeze can be implemented in same way. Putting device in low-power state does not actually hurt, it only makes things slower. It hurts for disk, but that's probably it. > It would actually simplify and clarify a lot of the confusion we have now. > > I already fixed one driver (sky2) that simply didn't save it's PCI state, > it just suspended (and then in resume it tried to "restore" the state > that had never been saved). And I _bet_ that was because it's just a very > natural thing to do when you look at "suspend()" as an independent op. Well, suspend/resume is a pair. sky2 was broken if it could not resume after suspend. > So it's actually important - _especially_ for device drivers - to have > logical and _distinct_ operations, because device driver writers seldom > see the big picture. But if you tell a device driver writer that he needs > to save the state, he'll understand that. He might even understand the > notion of shutting down the receive side for devices that need it. But if > you tell a device driver writer that they need to write a "suspend" > function, that's exactly what he will do. Okay, I guess we have some explaining to do. But I'd hate to change semantics now and confuse driver writers even more. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
