lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Mar]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: klists and struct device semaphores

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005, David Brownell wrote:

> On Monday 28 March 2005 9:44 am, Patrick Mochel wrote:
>
> > How is this related to (8) above? Do you need some sort of protected,
> > short path through the core to add the device, but not bind it or add it
> > to the PM core?
>
> Erm, why is there a distinction between "adding device" and "adding it
> to the PM core"? That's a conceptual problem right there. There
> should be no distinctio. (But it does make eminent sense to be able
> to add a device without necessarily binding it to a driver, since
> the "unbound driver" state is all over the place.)

Don't get too excited; there is no distinction.

He seemed to imply that it would be useful for interfaces to be added
without having the possibility of being suspended until all the interfaces
of a device were added. I'm simply trying to understand what he thinks is
necessary.


Pat

-
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: 2005-04-06 13:31    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans