On Saturday, 5 May 2007 17:37, Alan Stern wrote: > On Sat, 5 May 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > Yeah, whatever. You can fix the problem but it's ugly. Let's come up > > > with a good way to do the 6 callbacks mentioned in some other thread > > > earlier. > > > > This is the plan, but we need to do some preparations. > > > > For example, I think, we should introduce some consistent terminology, so that > > we *always* know what we're talking about. > > A proposal: > > For suspend-to-RAM we already have suspend() and resume(). At the > possible cost of introducing some confusion, I think it makes sense to > keep those method names. I agree. > For hibernation we need these: > > pre_snapshot() > post_snapshot() > pre_restore() > post_restore() > > In addition we may want to have early/late variations on these (for use > after interrupts have been disabled), which would lead to: > > pre_snapshot() > pre_snapshot_late() > post_snapshot_early() > post_snapshot() > pre_restore() > pre_restore_late() > post_restore_early() > post_restore() > > Yes, it's a large list... But it seems to be necessary for providing all > the information drivers will need. I think we may need yet another callback, executed before pre_snapshot() and before we shrink memory during the hibernation, to be used by drivers that need a lot of additional memory in pre_snapshot(). Greetings, Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
