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

From: Nigel Cunningham
Date: Mon Dec 20 2004 - 18:41:37 EST


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?


Nigel Cunningham
Cyclades Software Engineer
Canberra, Australia

+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
Please read the FAQ at