On Sat, 2007-04-14 at 11:14 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > Now it does not need to be pm_ops. I'm fine with arch_pm_irq_quiesce() > > kind of thing (or find a better name if you can, maybe > > arch_pm_after_devices_suspend() arch_pm_before_device_wakeup() ?) and > > have the default implementation of these just do > > local_irq_disable/enable. > > I like this idea. I don't really. There can possibly be multiple pm_ops for one arch, who knows that they all need to do the same thing here? (It would probably be true for us right now though.) Also, all other things suspend to ram does go through pm_ops so IMHO adding an arch hook here now would just unnecessarily complicate the whole thing since suddenly you may need to do more than just pm_ops for suspend to ram. On the other hand, if doing an arch hook here and something like CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_SUSPEND_IRQ_HOOKS would actually allow us to end this pointless discussion, then why not. 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
