On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 11:41 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Frankly, I'm not sure. > > For practical purposes the BUG_ON() assertions will suffice, so I think you > can keep the two handlers. I'd change the names, though, to something > like quiesce() and activate(), for example. Sure. > [Hm, it feels more appropriate to define them for all platforms and make them > call local_irq_save() on the platforms that don't need to do anything more.] Is there much point in that? It seems to make implementing new pm_ops a bit more complex seeing that nobody but us seems to require such a thing yet. > BTW, please remember to update the SNAPSHOT_S2RAM ioctl accordingly (well, > I think we should move the common code to a separate function). Good point. I'll take a look. johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
