Messages in this thread |  | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | Subject | Re: NAK new drivers without proper power management? | Date | Sun, 11 Feb 2007 14:04:13 +0100 |
| |
On Sunday, 11 February 2007 07:46, Willy Tarreau wrote: [--snip--]
> What I really think would be a clean solution would be sort of > a capability. Either the driver *is* suspend/resume-capable, and > the system can be suspended. Or it is not, and the system must > refuse to suspend. It should not be a problem to proceed like > this because drivers which will not support suspend will mainly > be those which will not have to. And if a user occasionnaly > complains that one driver does not support it, at least you will > have a good argument against its author to implement suspend.
I agree, but the suspend/resume safeness has to be somehow indicated by the driver. We could add a flag for that, but it would require us to modify lots of existing drivers (unless there's something obvious I don't see). However, the driver can effectively say "I'm not suspend/resume-safe" by returning an error from .suspend(), in which case the system will automatically refuse to suspend.
Greetings, Rafael - 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/
|  |