Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263394AbTHWRUf (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Aug 2003 13:20:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262831AbTHWRAn (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Aug 2003 13:00:43 -0400 Received: from AMarseille-201-1-3-186.w193-253.abo.wanadoo.fr ([193.253.250.186]:57127 "EHLO gaston") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262802AbTHWQ1f (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Aug 2003 12:27:35 -0400 Subject: Re: [PM] Patrick: which part of "maintainer" and "peer review" needs explaining to you? From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Patrick Mochel Cc: Pavel Machek , Linus Torvalds , kernel list In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <1061655739.786.3.camel@gaston> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.4 Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 18:22:19 +0200 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1733 Lines: 37 > > If you want to help, take a look at drivers/pci/power.c. That file > > should not need to exist, but if I kill it bad stuff happens after > > resume. Killing pm_register() and friends would be nice. > > I'll get there. Give me a couple of weeks.. Actually, on ppc, I have no problem removing that old crap. I suppose part of the problem Pavel is having is the new code never calling PCI save_state(). The probleme here is related to the new semantics. save_state() is indeed meaningless now, but a bunch of drivers implemented sleep in there because this was really what was called on suspend()... So unless we want to remove save_state from struct pci_driver and fix all PCI drivers that implement it, we shall call both save_state() and suspend() from pci-driver.c suspend routine. (Patch sent separately) > The decision to kill the level parameter came from extensive discussions > with Benh, who convinced me that we only need to call ->suspend() once for > any device; though we still need to somehow provide for those that need to > power down with interrupts disabled. I suggested -EAGAIN, since it allows > us to special case those that need it, with the minimum amount of impact. > Ben agreed with me. Well... I think I told you I don't like much the check on the interrupt and tended to prefer either a separate power_down_irq callback or a parameter, but that would mean changing prototype for drivers... I agreed we can live with your current scheme though. Ben. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/