On Wed, 2007-05-02 at 00:02 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Well, having a look on the ACPI spec I'm thinking that what we're trying to do > with this patch is actually wrong. No idea :) > Instead, we should rip off all of the invocations of pm_ops->whatever() from > the hibernation code paths (with the below exceptions) and *if* the platform > method is to be used, call pm_ops to make the system go down, in the following > way: > 1) call pm_ops->prepare(PM_SUSPEND_DISK) > 2) suspend devices (ie. call device_suspend() etc.) > 3) call pm_ops->enter(PM_SUSPEND_DISK) > and if that *fails* (ie. pm_ops->enter() returns): > 4) call pm_ops->finish(PM_SUSPEND_DISK) > 5) halt the system Can we still split that off to another method so we don't use pm_ops? No matter how we invoke hibernation_ops or in what order, imho we shouldn't use pm_ops. 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
