[linux-pm] [PATCH -next] PM: Simplify the new suspend/hibernation framework for devices

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Saturday, 11 of October 2008, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 12:47:34AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, 10 of October 2008, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 10:46:05PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > On Monday, 6 of October 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > Hi Greg,
> > > > > 
> > > > > I promised at the KS that I would simplify the new suspend/hibernation
> > > > > framework for devices to avoid the confusion with two types of PM
> > > > > operations and pointers to PM operations from too many places.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The appended patch is intended for this purpose.  Unfortunately, I can't
> > > > > split it into subsystem-related patches, because compilation would be broken
> > > > > between them.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The patch applies to linux-next, but it's trivial to make it apply to the
> > > > > mainline.  It's been compiled on x86 (both 32-bit and 64-bit) and tested
> > > > > on hp nx6325, doesn't appear to break anything.
> > > > 
> > > > This one had a checkpatch.pl problem, sorry for that.  Updated patch is
> > > > appended.
> > > 
> > > I've added this to my tree (Jesse, is this ok, as it does have a PCI
> > > portion?)
> > > 
> > > But it's too late for .28, especially due to the -next tree not up and
> > > running right now.  I'll let it bake in -mm and -next and it should go
> > > into .29.
> > > 
> > > Is that ok?
> > 
> > Well, if anyone pushes anything depending on this framework for .27, that will
> > become a !@#$%^&* mess (we've had this problem once already).
> 
> Do we have any drivers that depend on this framework in any tree?  Is
> anyone needing this now?

Well, I thought that the Hannes' work would depend on it quite a bit. :-)

Apart from this no one should really need it right now.  I hope.

Thanks,
Rafael