[lkml]   [2011]   [Oct]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/5] drivercore: Add driver probe deferral mechanism
    On Thu, 13 Oct 2011, Ming Lei wrote:

    > Hi,
    > On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Alan Stern <>
    > >> Maybe we should understand the correct model of the ordering constraints
    > >> for the multiple device dependancies first, could you give a description or
    > >> some examples about it?
    > >
    > > The requirement is that devices must be capable of resuming in the
    > > order given by dpm_list, and they must be capable of suspending in
    > > the reverse order.
    > >
    > > Therefore if device A can't work unless device B is functional, then B
    > > must come before A in dpm_list.
    > If all devices can support async suspend and resume correctly, looks like
    > the device order given by dpm_list is not needed any longer, doesn't it?

    It _is_ needed, because the user can disable async suspend/resume via

    Also, not all devices do support async suspend/resume.

    Alan Stern

     \ /
      Last update: 2011-10-13 18:07    [W:0.020 / U:0.772 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site