lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Feb]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: NAK new drivers without proper power management?
    Date
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2007-02-11 14:09    [W:2.822 / U:0.008 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site