[lkml]   [2007]   [Feb]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: NAK new drivers without proper power management?
On Friday, 9 February 2007 23:26, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Hi.
> On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 23:17 +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > On Sat, 2007-02-10 at 08:57 +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > > Hi.
> > >
> > > I don't think this is already done (feel free to correct me if I'm
> > > wrong)..
> > >
> > > Can we start to NAK new drivers that don't have proper power management
> > > implemented? There really is no excuse for writing a new driver and not
> > > putting .suspend and .resume methods in anymore, is there?
> >
> >
> > to a large degree, a device driver that doesn't suspend is better than
> > no device driver at all, right?
> I'm not sure it is. It only makes more work for everyone else: We have
> to help people figure out what causes their computer to fail to resume
> (which can take quite a while), then get them them complain to driver
> author, and the driver author has to submit patches to fix it.
> All of this is avoided if they'll just do it right in the first place.
> > now.. if you want to make the core warn about it, that's very fair
> That's probably a good idea too, since I'm only suggesting this for new
> drivers.

I think if CONFIG_PM_DEBUG is set, the core should warn about drivers not
having .suspend or .resume routines.


If you don't have the time to read,
you don't have the time or the tools to write.
- Stephen King
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-02-09 23:49    [W:0.232 / U:7.344 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site