On Wednesday 20 June 2007 07:32, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wednesday, 20 June 2007 08:18, Shaohua Li wrote: > > On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 13:52 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Tuesday, 19 June 2007 04:33, Shaohua Li wrote: > > > > Based on David's patch > > > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-acpi&m=117873972806360&w=2 > > > > I slightly changed it. > > > > > > > > Add a helper routine, which gets the sleep state of a ACPI device. > > > > > > Is it going to work with the recent code ordering changes? I mean, > > > acpi_pm_prepare() is now called after device_suspend() (and analogously for > > > the hibernation), so the target ACPI state is not known when the drivers' > > > .suspend() routines are being called. > > Not. Could pm_message_t have a member indicating the suspend state? > > Well, I thought about that, but I did't know what people on linux-pm would > think about that. > > Alternatively, we could introduce a pm_target() global PM operation that will > set the target sleep state for the entire system. > > I think we should discuss that on linux-pm before any decision is made. okay, this thread include linux-pm.... I support the proposal that pm_message_t include the target state in addition to the phase of entering that state. The reasoning is simple, device drivers that receive a pm_message_t will do different things depending on the target state. The example at hand is ACPI devices that need to know how deep a D-state to go into based on the S-state, and this in-turn depends on if they are enabled as wakeup devices or not. thanks, -Len _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
