On Friday, 6 April 2007 11:44, Johannes Berg wrote: > 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. That's why I said "it feels". :-) Still, we can, for example, define default_quiesce() and default_activate() that will only call local_irq_save/restore() to be used by the architectures that don't need anything more etc. Greetings, Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
