On Tue, 6 Aug 2013, Shuah Khan wrote: > With the dev_pm_ops model, drivers have to provide interfaces for each > one of these states.
No, they don't. They can leave out interfaces if they want. > In this case, there will be a conflict since > pm_op() treats this state as freeze where as the driver wants to do > treat it as a suspend/hibernate. In the case of legacy pm_ops, state is > passed in as a parameter and driver could take special action if need > be, based on the state, however in dev_pm_ops model, state is not passed > in. Instead it is handled with state specific pm_ops interfaces. > > For example, if this driver were to be converted to dev_pm_ops, it would > require a freeze interface which will call sl811h_bus_suspend(). Once > that is done, PM_EVENT_PRETHAW will be mapped to freeze() ops and > sl811h_bus_suspend() will be called instead of port_power(sl811, 0); > > What I am getting at is, there is no provision to handle the special > case for PM_EVENT_PRETHAW like in the case of this driver when using > dev_pm_ops. Okay. So what? Alan Stern -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
