[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0703282203550.6730@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 22:08:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Maxim <maximlevitsky@...il.com>
cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Jeff Chua <jeff.chua.linux@...il.com>,
Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, pavel@...e.cz,
linux-pm@...ts.osdl.org, gregkh@...e.de,
linux-pci@...ey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
jgarzik@...ox.com, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...lanox.co.il>
Subject: Re: [ PATCH] Add suspend/resume for HPET was: Re: [3/6] 2.6.21-rc4:
known regressions
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007, Maxim wrote:
>
> I am sending here a patch that as was discussed here adds hpet to list of system devices
> and adds suspend/resume hooks this way.
> I tested it and it works fine.
Ok, it certainly looks better, but it *also* looks like it just assumes
the HPET is there. Which would work in testing _with_ a HPET, but would
likely break on hardware without one, no?
Shouldn't there be at least something like a
if (!is_hpet_capable())
return 0;
at the top of that init routine? I'd also expect that you'd need to check
that "hpet_virt_address" is valid or something?
(Or, better yet, shouldn't we set "boot_hpet_disable" when we decide not
to use the HPET, and set hpet_virt_address to NULL?)
Linus
-
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