![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday, 24 October 2006 08:54, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: >>However, this raises the question of do we actually want to prevent >>machines to suspend when they have a PCI device that don't have the PCI >>PM capability ? I'm asking that because I can easily imagine that sort >>of construct growing into more drivers (sounds logical if you don't >>think) and I can even imagine somebody thinking it's a good idea to slap >>a __must_check on pci_set_power_state() ... > > > As far as the suspend to RAM is concerned, I don't know. > > For the suspend to disk we can ignore the error if we know that the device > in question won't do anything like a DMA transfer into memory while we're > creating the suspend image. I think it should be ignored for suspend-to-RAM as well; even if a device or two is consuming unnecessary power, it's better than not being able to suspend at all, causing more things to consume unnecessary power. At most, a warning should be issued so the user knows what's going on, and can choose whether to suspend to disk instead (or choose to complain to the device manufacturer). -Scott - 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: 2006-10-24 16:13 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||