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

From: Pavel Machek
Date: Wed Dec 22 2004 - 15:29:58 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?

Well, we are starting with small steps... And since nobody knows how
to do one-device-suspend properly, we started with fixing system
suspend first.

Passing structure instead of u32 should make one-device-suspend easier
in future... Hopefully.
People were complaining that M$ turns users into beta-testers...
...jr ghea gurz vagb qrirybcref, naq gurl frrz gb yvxr vg gung jnl!
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