Cc: Nigel Cunningham <ncunningham@...>, pm list <linux-pm@...>, ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...>, Greg KH <greg@...>, Len Brown <lenb@...>, LKML <linux-kernel@...>, Alexey Starikovskiy <astarikovskiy@...>, David Brownell <david-b@...>, Pavel Machek <pavel@...>, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...>, Oliver Neukum <oliver@...>
No, it has more pointers. Specifically, it is like
struct pm_ext_ops {
struct pm_ops base;
--additional pointers go here--
}
Yes, it does. In that cases, the error code would tell the PM core not to attempt
to resume the device's children etc. Otherwise, it's quite meaningless to the
PM core, because it really can mean anything and how's the PM core supposed
to handle _that_?
Either we decide that the error codes returned by ->resume() mean critical
errors or there's no point in returning error codes from ->resume() at all
(other than logging the errors by the core).
Well, that's getting confused. I think I'll have to rework the patch not to
really handle the errors returned by ->resume() and friends, after all, but
I'll keep the reporting of them.
However, I'd like to add a recommendation that the _new_ "resume" callbacks
should only return errors in critical situations as the indication to the PM
core that something went _really_ wrong and the device in question is quite
surely unusable.
Thanks,
Rafael
--
