Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 26 Nov 2004 01:20:03 +0100 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |