[lkml]   [2007]   [Feb]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: NAK new drivers without proper power management?
On Sunday, 11 February 2007 07:46, Willy Tarreau wrote:

> 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.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-02-11 14:09    [W:0.264 / U:0.160 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site