On Sun, 2007-06-24 at 22:44 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> There is no reason why the .prepare() and .finish() methods in 'struct
> platform_suspend_operations' should take any arguments, since architectures
> don't use these methods' argument in any practically meaningful way (ie. either
> the target system sleep state is conveyed to the platform by .set_target(), or
> there is only one suspend state supported and it is indicated to the PM core by
> .valid(), or .prepare() and .finish() aren't defined at all). There also is
> no reason why .finish() should return any result.
Nice cleanups, I'd wanted to do them when I was doing all that pm_ops
stuff but then didn't get around. Good stuff.
> --- linux-2.6.22-rc5.orig/arch/powerpc/platforms/52xx/mpc52xx_pm.c 2007-06-24 20:45:21.000000000 +0200
> +++ linux-2.6.22-rc5/arch/powerpc/platforms/52xx/mpc52xx_pm.c 2007-06-24 21:07:41.000000000 +0200
> -int mpc52xx_pm_prepare(suspend_state_t state)
> +static int mpc52xx_pm_prepare(void)
> {
> - if (state != PM_SUSPEND_STANDBY)
> - return -EINVAL;
> -
Hm. I thought I'd told them to leave that out before it went in. Oh
well.
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
