![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, Pavel Machek wrote: > Well, "no DMA" needs to be part of definition, too, because some > devices (USB) do DMA only if they have nothing to do. I don't understand; that doesn't sound healthy. > if something like this gets merged, it will immediately break swsusp > because initially no drivers will have "stop" methods. > > Passing system state down to drivers and having special "quiesce" > (as discussed in rather long thread) state has advantage of > automagicaly working on drivers that ignore u32 parameter of suspend > callback (and that's most of them). David's patches do not bring us > runtime suspend capabilities, but do not force us to go through all > the drivers, either... Nothing is free. ;) We've been talking about creating and merging a sane power management model for 3+ years now. It's always been known that the drivers will have to be modified to support a sane model. It's a fact of life. At some point, we have to bite the bullet and do the work. I see that time rapidly approaching. I do not intend to merge a patch that will break swsusp in a stable kernel. However, we do have this wonderful thing called the -mm tree in which we can a) evolve the model, b) get large testing coverage and c) solicit driver fixes. Once the swsusp consolidation is merged upstream, I will merge a new device power model in -mm, and we can start working on the drivers. How does that sound? Pat - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 14:05 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||