On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 12:47:34AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Friday, 10 of October 2008, Greg KH wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 10:46:05PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Monday, 6 of October 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > Hi Greg, > > > > > > > > I promised at the KS that I would simplify the new suspend/hibernation > > > > framework for devices to avoid the confusion with two types of PM > > > > operations and pointers to PM operations from too many places. > > > > > > > > The appended patch is intended for this purpose. Unfortunately, I can't > > > > split it into subsystem-related patches, because compilation would be broken > > > > between them. > > > > > > > > The patch applies to linux-next, but it's trivial to make it apply to the > > > > mainline. It's been compiled on x86 (both 32-bit and 64-bit) and tested > > > > on hp nx6325, doesn't appear to break anything. > > > > > > This one had a checkpatch.pl problem, sorry for that. Updated patch is > > > appended. > > > > I've added this to my tree (Jesse, is this ok, as it does have a PCI > > portion?) > > > > But it's too late for .28, especially due to the -next tree not up and > > running right now. I'll let it bake in -mm and -next and it should go > > into .29. > > > > Is that ok? > > Well, if anyone pushes anything depending on this framework for .27, that will > become a !@#$%^&* mess (we've had this problem once already). Do we have any drivers that depend on this framework in any tree? Is anyone needing this now? thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
