Messages in this thread | | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | 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 |
| |
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
| |