[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1171312688.4081.9.camel@nigel.suspend2.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 07:38:08 +1100
From: Nigel Cunningham <nigel@...el.suspend2.net>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: NAK new drivers without proper power management?
Hi.
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'?
Agreed.
Regards,
Nigel
-
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