lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Nov]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Suspend2 merge: 1/51: Device trees
Hi!

> > > I'd agree, except that I don't know how many to allocate. It makes
> > > getting a reliable suspend the result of guess work and favourable
> > > circumstances. Fixing 'broken' drivers by really suspending them seems
> > > to me to be the right solution. Make their memory requirements perfectly
> > > predictable.
> >
> > Except for the few drivers that are between suspend device and
> > root. So you still have the same problem, and still need to
> > guess. Plus you get complex changes to driver model.
>
> I think you're overstating your case. All we're talking about doing is
> quiescing the same drivers that would be quiesced later, in the same
> way, but earlier in the process. Apart from the code I already have in
> that patch, nothing else is needed. The changes aren't that complex,
> either.

Driver model now needs to know how to handle tree where some parts are
suspended and some are not, and I think that's quite a big change.

Pavel
--
People were complaining that M$ turns users into beta-testers...
...jr ghea gurz vagb qrirybcref, naq gurl frrz gb yvxr vg gung jnl!
-
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: 2005-03-22 14:08    [W:1.444 / U:0.084 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site