On Friday, 27 April 2007 12:19, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 12:18 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > 1) We define platform_hibernation if CONFIG_ACPI is set.
>
> Let's just define it always then in the common code so we don't have
> even more magic bits platforms need to define even if they don't care at
> all. And please don't put #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI into the common code ;)
> Maybe #ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_NEEDS_HIBERNATE_HOOKS or something.
>
> > 2) In the ACPI code we do
> >
> > if (can do S4)
> > platform_hibernation = 1;
>
> Gotcha.
>
> > 3) We have functions arch_platform_prepare()/finish()/enter() that are defined
> > to be noops for anything but ACPI systems and for ACPI systems they are
> > defined like this:
> >
> > int arch_platform_enter(void)
> > {
> > if (!platform_hibernation)
> > return 0;
> >
> > ...
> > }
> >
> > I think it should work.
>
> You could reduce code churn in all other platforms by making these weak
> symbols like the irq hooks I did for pm_ops. It looks like it can work
> and possibly is even less intrusive than my hibernate_ops patch. Though
> then again my hibernate_ops patch removed a lot of stuff that is now no
> longer necessary, and also completely removed the PM_SUSPEND_DISK foo...
> we probably want that regardless of how we invoke ACPI.
Yes. Still, I'd like to rework your patch to deal with ACPI without
introducing hibernate_ops . I'm going to do this later today if you don't
mind. :-)
Rafael
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
