Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760578AbYC0Qd2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:33:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758412AbYC0QdS (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:33:18 -0400 Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:45987 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758370AbYC0QdR (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:33:17 -0400 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: benh@kernel.crashing.org Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/3] PM: Introduce new top level suspend and hibernation callbacks (rev. 4) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:33:13 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 20070904.708012) Cc: Alexey Starikovskiy , pm list , ACPI Devel Maling List , Alan Stern , Greg KH , Len Brown , LKML , David Brownell , Pavel Machek , Oliver Neukum References: <200803262353.30566.rjw@sisk.pl> <200803270223.06715.rjw@sisk.pl> <1206586358.6926.68.camel@pasglop> In-Reply-To: <1206586358.6926.68.camel@pasglop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200803271733.14480.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1968 Lines: 57 On Thursday, 27 of March 2008, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 02:23 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Thursday, 27 of March 2008, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > > > > > > There is absolutely no point getting a second struct anymore. > > > > > > > > I obviously disagree with that opinion, so please elaborate. > > > > > > Well, what does it bring you ? Why can't it be one struct ? To save > > > space in the data area ? > > > > Mostly, but not only that. > > > > There are users of 'struct pm_ops' that aren't even supposed to define the > > _noirq callbacks (device types and device classes), so I thought it would be > > better to introduce a separate _noirq struct after all. > > Make sense... USB has no use of noirq for example. Well, FWIW, we can also do something like this: struct pm_ops { int (*prepare)(struct device *dev); void (*complete)(struct device *dev); int (*suspend)(struct device *dev); int (*resume)(struct device *dev); int (*freeze)(struct device *dev); int (*thaw)(struct device *dev); int (*poweroff)(struct device *dev); int (*restore)(struct device *dev); }; struct pm_ext_ops { struct pm_ops base; int (*suspend_noirq)(struct device *dev); int (*resume_noirq)(struct device *dev); int (*freeze_noirq)(struct device *dev); int (*thaw_noirq)(struct device *dev); int (*poweroff_noirq)(struct device *dev); int (*restore_noirq)(struct device *dev); }; and use 'struct pm_ext_ops' for the entities that may need to implement the _noirq callbacks. This way we'll avoid the duplication of "_noirq" in the code pointed to by Alex and there will be one "pm" pointer per bus type, device type, device class, etc. Thoughts? Thanks, Rafael -- 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/