On Mon, 31 Jan 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Monday, January 31, 2011, Alan Stern wrote: > > On Sun, 30 Jan 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > One thing about this implementation is slightly questionable. The new > > > > power_domain callbacks were added to the __weak platform PM routines, > > > > which means they will have to be included in every overriding routine > > > > provided by a platform imiplementation. > > > > > > > > Would it be better to separate these things? Have the power_domain > > > > callbacks occur in a static outer function which then calls a public > > > > __weak inner function that can be overridden? > > > > > > That certainly is a good idea, but I wasn't sure how to do that. It looks > > > like I could keep the __weak functions as they are and modify > > > platform_dev_pm_ops instead to point to a new set of function that in turn > > > would call the __weak ones. For example, the .suspend pointer in > > > platform_dev_pm_ops might point to a new function, say > > > platform_pm_full_suspend() that would call the power domain functions and > > > the "original" platform_pm_suspend(). Is that what you mean? > > > > Yes. But what about the platform_bus_set_pm_ops() interface? Should > > platform-specific replacements for the pm_ops functions also include > > the power_domain callbacks? > > Well, whoever uses platform_bus_set_pm_ops(), he can simply prevent power > domains from being used by not defining them in the first place. :-) But what about the case where the user _does_ want to have power domains? Do you want to make the replacement routines responsible for invoking the power-domain callbacks, or should the platform core handle this automatically? Alan Stern _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
