On Saturday 25 July 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > Was suspend to disk tested? It requires freeze()/thaw().
> > >
> > > Is that a regression introduced by this patch then? If so, many
> > > more of the recent dev_pm_ops conversion patches would need to be
> > > revisited.
>
> Yes, they would. In general, you'd probably want to do something like
> this:
>
> static struct dev_pm_ops au1xmmc_pmops = {
> .resume = au1xmmc_resume,
> .suspend = au1xmmc_suspend,
> .freeze = au1xmmc_resume,
> .thaw = au1xmmc_suspend,
> .restore = au1xmmc_resume,
> .poweroff = au1xmmc_suspend,
> };
>
> but in this particular case it's probably better to define separate
> callbacks for .freeze() and .thaw() at least.
>
> During hibernation we call .freeze() and .thaw() before and after
> creating the image, respectively, and then .poweroff() is called right
> after the image has been saved. During resume .freeze() is called
> after the image has been loaded and before the control goes to the
> image kernel, which then calls .restore().
Yes, I see that in drivers/base/platform.c (legacy) .suspend resp. .resume
also got called for those cases?
Ouch :-(
I've added others who've submitted dev_pm_ops patches in CC.
> I'll fix up the floppy and hp-wmi patches.
Note that those are already in mainline, as is pcspkr.
Thanks,
FJP
