Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 11 Feb 2007 20:42:02 +0100 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: NAK new drivers without proper power management? |
| |
Hi!
> > > > Can we start to NAK new drivers that don't have proper power management > > > > implemented? There really is no excuse for writing a new driver and not > > > > putting .suspend and .resume methods in anymore, is there? > > > > > > to a large degree, a device driver that doesn't suspend is better than > > > no device driver at all, right? > > > now.. if you want to make the core warn about it, that's very fair > > > > Well, driver that is broken on SMP is arguably better than no driver > > at all, yet we'd probably avoid merging that. It would be nice to > > start including suspend in 'must work' list... > > What about this: > > "If the device requires that, implement .suspend and .resume or at least > define .suspend that will always return -ENOSYS (then people will know they > have to unload the driver before the suspend). Similarly, if you aren't sure > whether or not the device requires .suspend and .resume, define .suspend that > will always return -ENOSYS."
Sounds ok to me. Where should this text go? Documentation/SubmittingDrivers ?
Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html - 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/
| |