[lkml]   [2003]   [Sep]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Fix up power managment in 2.6

> > > Please don't - that means undoing all the work I've put in to make
> > > ARM work again, and I don't have time to play silly games like this.
> >
> > Okay, so Patrick broke ARM and you fixed it. But he also broke i386 and
> > x86-64; and it is not at all clear that his "newer" version is better
> > than the old one. [Really, what's the advantage? AFAICS it is more
> > complicated and less flexible, putting "suspend" method to bus as
> > oppossed to device].
> I don't think PCI device support broke - Pat seems to have fixed up
> all that fairly nicely, so the driver model change should be
> transparent.

As far as I can test, yes, at least UHCI looks broken :-(. It is true
that calling convention at PCI level did not change.

> The main advantage from a driver writers point of view is the disposal
> of the "level" argument. (Doesn't really affect x86, PCI drivers never
> had visibility of this.)

Yes, "level" is gone, instead we have very ugly
-EAGAIN-means-call-me-with-interrupts-disabled hack.

> However, I'll let the PPC people justify the real reason for the driver
> model change, since it was /their/ requirement that caused it, and I'm
> not going to fight their battles for them. (although I seem to be doing
> exactly that while wasting my time here.)

I noticed something going on, but it seem to me one more "struct bus"
would have solved that...
When do you have a heart between your knees?
[Johanka's followup: and *two* hearts?]
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: 2005-03-22 13:48    [W:0.091 / U:9.100 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site