On Saturday 13 March 2010, Alan Stern wrote: > On Sat, 13 Mar 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > Please note that the "legacy" callbacks removed by this patch are already > > effectively dead, because they are not going to be called by the PM core > > anyway. I'm not sure if this is what we want, though, so please let me know > > in case it's not. > > You know, maybe we should allow bus types to use both the old and new > interfaces. It would make life easier for other subsystems in addition > to i2c. > > This doesn't mean that the core would end up calling two sets of > suspend routines. If the bus type uses legacy routines then all the > non-runtime entries in the pm_ops structure would be empty. > > The changes to the PM core necessary to do this are quite small. Not really. The detection that the particular callback is not present happens in pm_op(), while the decision which framework to use is made at the device_[suspend|resume]() level. > Does it seem like a reasonable thing to do? Well, if someone spends time on implementing new callbacks for a bus type, writing them in such a way that they will call the "legacy" callbacks from drivers if necessary is not really a big deal IMO. The problem in this particular case is that I don't know whether or not we _want_ the drivers' "legacy" callbacks to be invoked at all. The $subject patch assumes we don't, but if we do in fact, I'll rework it to do so. I need that piece of information, though. :-) Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
