Hi! > > Is the pm_disk_mode still bitmask? If yes, say so. > > > > ...no, it does not appear so. > > No, I should have explained. Since the prepare/enter/finish callbacks > aren't told what the chosen pm_disk_mode is, there is no point in > allowing multiple since they can't differentiate. Changing that is > something that could be done, but doesn't seem necessary since ACPI is > the only user. I guess we'll have more such users in future. > > Please don't do this. We want to keep the "use platform if available" > > behaviour. [Changing platform->shutdown is really _big_ change, > > independend from any cleanups, and it needs to go separate at the very > > least. It will break some machines.] > > As far as I can tell "use platform if available" means "use platform > when ACPI pm_ops are present" since that's the only pm_ops that has > platform. And notice that I change the default when pm_ops are > registered. i did not look _that_ closely. As long as platform is still default on acpi systems, we are okay. > However, using PM_DISK_PLATFORM by default w/o pm_ops support is *wrong* > as I explained previously since it leads to user-interface > inconsistencies, the user can switch *away* from platform but *not back* > to platform. No argument about that. -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
