On 2/28/07, David Brownell <david-b at pacbell.net> wrote: > On Wednesday 28 February 2007 1:20 pm, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > Hi David, > > > > It appears that your unread lists backlog is even longer than mine ;) > > I had to tune out linux-PM for a while due to volume (and travel). In > retrospect, that was a good choice because those discussions were so > inconclusive. Ergo one might say it was more noise than signal. :) > > > > On 2/28/07, David Brownell <david-b at pacbell.net> wrote: > > > > > > > Any object with embedded dev_pm_info structure can be added to > > > > ower management list and have its suspend/resume methods called > > > > automatically by driver core. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dtor at mail.ru> > > > > > > This patch was interesting ... was there followup that I missed? > > > > Yes, there was: > > http://lists.osdl.org/pipermail/linux-pm/2006-October/003927.html > > The list archive just showed these patches, no direct followups. > Too bad. :( > > > > > (The patch 3/3, teaching class_device how to do PM, seems like it's > > > not a good approach, now that class suspend/resume can work.) > > > > > > > Now the point is moot; I was just trying to do class device > > suspend/resume without wholesale conversion to struct device requiring > > entire tree shakeup. > > It seems that's not going to happen for class_device. I take it you > were looking at having the input subsystem use class suspend/resume? > Not at that time. I was just questioning the need to dump "struct class_device" and switch everything to "stuct device" fattening it in the process. -- Dmitry
