On Sat, 8 Dec 2007, Oliver Neukum wrote: > Am Freitag, 7. Dezember 2007 19:01:12 schrieb David Brownell: > > FWIW the appended patch removes that rude "order of registration" > > policy, so that the suspend/resume list matches the device tree. > > It's behaved OK on PCs and, in light duty, a few development boards; > > I've carried it around most of this year. > > As it is a tree, why not store it as such? There's no need to "store" the tree ordering specially, since all the pointers already exist. The question is: In what order should the tree be traversed? About the only explicit constraint we have now is that children must be suspended before their parents, but there undoubtedly are plenty of undocumented implicit constraints (maybe some of them aren't known to anybody at all). Given the vast number of possible orders, and given that the only order we _know_ works correctly is reverse order of registration, I don't see any big reason to change. Speeding things up by parallel suspension would be a valid reason, but it needs to be done with a great deal of care. Alan Stern _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
