[lkml]   [2007]   [Feb]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: NAK new drivers without proper power management?

On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 16:57 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > Can't the upper layer just assume -ENOSYS if .resume/.suspend is NULL?
> > > It's nicer if you don't have to implement dummy functions at all.
> >
> > Unfortunately, drivers currently assume "NULL == nothing is needed",
> > so we'd have t do big search & replace...
> Which means you also cannot easily keep track of which driver supports
> suspend/resume and which doesn't, as there will always be drivers where a
> missing suspend/resume function is correct.
> Wouldn't it be more sensible to have
> .suspend = suspend_nothing_to_do
> instead, and reserve NULL for `not yet implemented'?




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: 2007-02-12 22:05    [W:0.164 / U:0.528 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site