Re: Solving suspend-level confusion

[David Brownell]

On Tuesday 03 August 2004 19:56, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:

> Actually, I took a shortcut with my PPC implementation of swsusp,
> which was to tweak the numbering of PM_SUSPEND_* so that
> 
>  PM_SUSPEND_STANDBY	= 1
>  PM_SUSPEND_MEM		= 3
>  PM_SUSPEND_DISK	= 4
> 
> Which has the "side effect" of matching S states and mostly D states
> with the exception of disk, for the few drivers that care...

So long as there's a comment explaining what's going on there
("original PCI PM API compatibility") this wins hugely on expedience!


> But in the long run, this may add confusion instead of clearing things,
> I agree we should rather move to completely different types, though I
> don't feel like re-typing every callbacks in the tree right now...

Me either.  But renumbering the PM_SUSPEND_* values would let folk
start discussing what PM should be (and do) without that particular
pressure.

- Dave

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/