Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: NAK new drivers without proper power management? | From | Nigel Cunningham <> | Date | Tue, 13 Feb 2007 08:24:13 +1100 |
| |
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/
| |