Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265030AbTIIXBa (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Sep 2003 19:01:30 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265040AbTIIXBa (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Sep 2003 19:01:30 -0400 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:61349 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265030AbTIIXBC (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Sep 2003 19:01:02 -0400 Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 16:07:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Patrick Mochel X-X-Sender: mochel@cherise To: Pavel Machek cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Jens Axboe , Linus Torvalds , kernel list Subject: Re: [PM] Patrick: which part of "maintainer" and "peer review" needs explaining to you? In-Reply-To: <20030909225410.GD211@elf.ucw.cz> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 739 Lines: 19 > I do think this is a bit complicated. I believe passing level, along > with type of the suspend (aka swsusp vs. S4bios) should be enough. What about suspend-to-ram, APM, and runtime states? That actually makes it quite a bit more complicated, globally. By forcing the policy down to the drivers, you force each one to interpret the value themselves and make the decision. By doing it centrally, the only thing the low-level drivers have to worry about is going into the state. Pat - 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/