Messing up driver model API

[Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>]

Hi!

So you just had to mess it up... Having suspend(device *, state,
level) might be bad, but having suspend(device *, state, level) in one
piece of code and {suspend,save}(device *, state) is *way* worse. (And
I did not see any proposal on l-k. I hope I just missed it).

So are you going to revert it or convert whole driver model to use
{suspend,save}(device *, state)?
									Pavel

[driver model] Add save() and restore() methods for system device drivers. 

It turns out that at least some system device drivers need to allocate 
memory and/or sleep for one reason or another when either saving or 
restoring state. 

Instead of adding a 'level' paramter to the suspend() and resume() methods,
which I despise and think is a horrible programming interface, two new 
methods have been added to struct sysdev_driver:

        int     (*save)(struct sys_device *, u32 state);
        int     (*restore)(struct sys_device *);

that are called explicitly before and after suspend() and resume() 
respectively, with interrupts enabled. This gives the drivers the
flexibility to allocate memory and sleep, if necessary. 

-- 
When do you have a heart between your knees?
[Johanka's followup: and *two* hearts?]