[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 19:25:34 -0500
From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To: nigel@...el.suspend2.net
CC: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: NAK new drivers without proper power management?
Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 23:17 +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>> On Sat, 2007-02-10 at 08:57 +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
>>> Hi.
>>>
>>> I don't think this is already done (feel free to correct me if I'm
>>> wrong)..
>>>
>>> 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?
>
> I'm not sure it is. It only makes more work for everyone else: We have
> to help people figure out what causes their computer to fail to resume
> (which can take quite a while), then get them them complain to driver
> author, and the driver author has to submit patches to fix it.
>
> All of this is avoided if they'll just do it right in the first place.
A lot of a lot of things could have been avoided, if they just did it
right the first time.
I think it's more valuable to users to get a basic network driver that
pings or a basic ATA driver that reads/writes, than peripheral issues
like suspend/resume.
Certainly we should ask for it, but it shouldn't be a merge-stopper.
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists