On Friday, 6 April 2007 02:09, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 02:02 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > Well, this seems to be more natural ("if you want to do something before/after
> > disabling the IRQs, define it" instead of "you can do something instead of
> > calling local_irq_save(), but please remember to disable the IRQs yourself
> > in that case").
>
> Heh. Yeah, I guess. It just didn't seem worth it. I personally don't
> care, I just need to be able to get at those spots.
>
> > BTW, it need not be in pm_ops (actually, why should it be there?).
> > Alternatively, you can define something like arch_prepare_for_disabling_irqs()
> > and/or arch_prepare_device_power_down() that will be empty on x86, for
> > example.
>
> Not sure, it might be different for different suspend methods. We
> actually need to do some platform-function stuff inbetween, and if we
> ever want some S4-like state then we might need to do it differently.
Ah, OK
Rafael
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
