Re: [RFC/RFT][PATCH -mm 6/8] PM: Rework struct platform_suspend_operations

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi!

> 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.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>

ACK. (Maybe you should not in changelog that this changes absolutely
no behaviour; it is not immediately obvious).

-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm

[Index of Archives]     [Linux ACPI]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [CPU Freq]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux