lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Feb]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: NAK new drivers without proper power management?
    Date
    On Monday, 12 February 2007 21:58, Pavel Machek wrote:
    > Hi!
    >
    > > > > If all you need to do is say 'I don't need to do anything' and we have a
    > > > > shared function that does that, all we're talking about doing is adding
    > > > > to your struct pci_device (or whatever)
    > > > >
    > > > > .resume = generic_empty_resume;
    > > > >
    > > > > To me at least, that doesn't look awkward, and says cleanly and clearly
    > > > > that you've checked things over and decided you know what's required.
    > > >
    > > > Actually, I'd like it to be
    > > >
    > > > .resume = generic_empty_resume; /* Explain, why your driver needs no
    > > > resume */
    > >
    > > Okay, but we can't define an empty .resume(), because, for example, the PCI's
    > > generic suspend/resume won't be called.
    >
    > PCI drivers should just do .resume = pci_generic_resume, explicitely.

    Well, I generally agree, but I think the idea with the "pm_safe" flag has some
    advantages. For example, the drivers that do deffine .suspend() and .resume()
    which don't work correctly could be flagged as not "pm_safe" until the problems
    are fixed.

    Greetings,
    Rafael
    -
    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: 2007-02-12 22:07    [W:0.022 / U:34.364 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site