On Tuesday, 26 June 2007 19:19, David Brownell wrote: > On Tuesday 26 June 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > Alternatively, I could write that the argument passed to .enter() etc. is > > guaranteed to be the same as the one passed to .set_target(), but I didn't want > > to say that. :-) > > Why not? So long as enter() takes an argument, that seems > to me exactly what it should guarantee. Okay, I can change the wording, although reluctantly. [Please have a look at [PATCH 1/8] in the updated series, the comment is a bit different in there, with "should" instead of "must" which I think is correct.] > Although that argument should vanish; any platform that differentiates > what it does based on that parameter can just be required > to provide a set_target() method. Well, I'd like to leave the option for defining only .enter(), without the other callbacks (some platforms do it and I don't see why we should force them to complicate things). In fact, what I wanted the comment to _mean_ after applying the entire patchset is that either you can define .set_target(), in which case you should use what it gives you and not anything else, or you can define only .enter(), in which case its argument represents the target state. Greetings, Rafael -- "Premature optimization is the root of all evil." - Donald Knuth _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
