lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Feb]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: NAK new drivers without proper power management?
From
Date
Hi.

On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 22:01 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 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.

Oooh. Now I like that idea. Are you thinking of a document in
Documentation/power that describes why pm_safe is off, or comments in
the code itself?

Regards,

Nigel

-
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 22:29    [W:0.201 / U:0.068 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site