[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070212165501.GA18101@elf.ucw.cz>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 17:55:01 +0100
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
nigel@...el.suspend2.net, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: NAK new drivers without proper power management?
Hi!
> > > > "If the device requires that, implement .suspend and .resume or at least
> > > ^^^^^^^^
> > > > define .suspend that will always return -ENOSYS (then people will know they
> > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > > have to unload the driver before the suspend). Similarly, if you aren't sure
> > > > whether or not the device requires .suspend and .resume, define .suspend that
> > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > > will always return -ENOSYS."
> > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > 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'?
It would be. Patch would be welcome :-).
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
-
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