On Mon, 2007-04-16 at 09:32 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > Does the "weird motherboard" stuff need to be suspended/resumed for > swsusp memory snapshot? I don't think so... I need to get into the details to verify, it might make sense to run some of the "resume" bits of it when resuming a STD kernel but I doubt it. It won't harm tho. > Well, I guess arch_pm_irq_quiesce_for_s2ram() would be > acceptable... but that would be only called for s2ram... which should > be enough for decrementer AFAICT. That's a pretty ugly name :-0 I'd be fine just having arch_pm_irq_quiesce() and only call it from the right s2ram call sites, or pass it an argument indicating the type of suspend and let the arch decide what to do. I fail to see the point in being so overly restrictive on something which will in the long run have little to no impact. > As decrementer is special for s2ram, we can add the hook. (It is > single hook). If we need to do something for snapshots, too... well, > we can still add arch_pm_irq_quiesce_for_snapshot() and > arch_pm_irq_quiesce_for_powerdown() etc, but it would get ugly fast. Which is why I think we should stick with the pair arch_pm_irq_quiesce() and arch_pm_irq_activate() or whatever name you come up with, and either have them only called for s2ram or pass the suspend type to them, I don't like the over long weird names you are coming up with but that's a detail :-) Ben. _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
