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    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans