On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, David Brownell wrote: > > On Wednesday 28 March 2007 9:38 am, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > It's a *device*, dammit. It should save and resume like one (probably as a > > system device). The "set_mode()" etc stuff is at a completely different > > (higher) conceptual level. > > Agreed, except about "probably as a system device". > > Last I checked, there was no good reason to use sysdev suspend()/resume() > rather than platform_device suspend_late()/early_resume(). Which more > or less means no good reason to use sysdev in new code... I won't disagree - it might well be much nicer to just show it in the "real" device tree. I'm not 100% sure where in the tree it would go, though. It should probably be "inside" the root entry, before any of the PCI buses. It's generally what we've used those "system device" things for, but I agree that it would be better to just make system devices show up early on the regular device list than it is to have them be special cases. Bit I think that's a separate (and fairly small) issue compared to the "don't use the clocksource infrastructure as a make-believe suspend/resume mechanism" problem that Maxim's patch had. (Maxim, don't take that the wrong way - I think your analysis and patch were great, I just think another organization would be better) > Also, making HPET use the legacy mode seems like a step backwards. I don't think that's actually "legacy" in any sense but the interrupt delivery, where the "legacy mode" bit is not so much that the HPET itself is "legacy" but that it *replaces* legacy devices. But I may have misunderstood the thing. I'm an old fart, so I know the old timers much better than I know the new ones ;). Somebody feel free to hit me with the clue-2x4. Linus _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
