On Saturday, 14 April 2007 00:25, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > Hmm, I missed that. :-( > > > > I think we need to make things clear: Either we add the additional hooks to > > pm_ops in which case they should be taken into account in the (u)swsusp code > > too, or we don't add them at all. > > > > Well, there also is one more solution. Namely, we can add the hooks to pm_ops > > and make (u)swsusp use something else instead of pm_ops, but that would require > > some more consideration. > > Well, what would be nice would be if swsusp wasn't just such a gross > contraption completely bypassing the rest of the suspend/resume > framework... IMHO, swsusp is a really special case, especially when it doesn't use pm_ops. On a PC it may look like a "typical" suspend/resume operation, but I think it generally is not one. Although we try to use as many pieces of the framework in swsusp as we can, we're still running into problems with that. There are just too many _practical_ differences. Greetings, Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
