[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45D18CCB.3070906@imap.cc>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:02:51 +0100
From: Tilman Schmidt <tilman@...p.cc>
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>,
nigel@...el.suspend2.net, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: NAK new drivers without proper power management?
Geert Uytterhoeven schrieb:
> 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",
More often than not they assume nothing of the kind.
>> 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.
I think those are rare exceptions. They could and should be
asked to make this statement explicit, as you propose:
> Wouldn't it be more sensible to have
>
> .suspend = suspend_nothing_to_do
>
> instead, and reserve NULL for `not yet implemented'?
NULL is already taken for 'don't know'. So *two* new values
are needed, one for "nothing to do" and one for "not supported".
--
Tilman Schmidt E-Mail: tilman@...p.cc
Bonn, Germany
Diese Nachricht besteht zu 100% aus wiederverwerteten Bits.
Ungeöffnet mindestens haltbar bis: (siehe Rückseite)
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (251 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists