Re: swsusp bigdiff [was Re: [PATCH] Software Suspend split to twostage V2.]

[Nigel Cunningham]

Hi.

On Sat, 2004-11-20 at 11:30, Pavel Machek wrote:
> --- clean/Documentation/power/devices.txt	2004-11-03 01:23:03.000000000 +0100
> +++ linux/Documentation/power/devices.txt	2004-11-03 02:16:40.000000000 +0100
> @@ -141,3 +141,82 @@
>  The driver core will not call any extra functions when binding the
>  device to the driver. 
>  
> +pm_message_t meaning
> +
> +pm_message_t has two fields. event ("major"), and flags.  If driver
> +does not know event code, it aborts the request, returning error. Some
> +drivers may need to deal with special cases based on the actual type
> +of suspend operation being done at the system level. This is why
> +there are flags.
> +

I don't know how I managed to miss this before, but I think it's
definitely a step in the right direction. I do wonder, though, if we're
going about this whole thing in a peacemeal approach. I feel like the
whole issue of power state management on the system wide and driver
level are being treated as two separate issues. Is it just me?

Regards,

Nigel
-- 
Nigel Cunningham
Cyclades Software Engineer
Canberra, Australia

http://www.cyclades.com

+61 (2) 6292 8028
+61 (417) 100 574

-
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/