[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0803251030220.4838-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 10:33:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>
cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Alexey Starikovskiy <astarikovskiy@...e.de>,
Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [RFC][PATCH] PM: Introduce new top level
suspend and hibernation callbacks (rev. 2)
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 25. März 2008 15:19:45 schrieb Alan Stern:
> > It's not safe for the PM core to do such things unilaterally. The
> > decision to unregister a device should be made by the driver or the
> > subsystem.
>
> Why? You can trigger it from user space via sysfs
How can you do that?
> and in many cases
> suspending to disk will disconnect all devices on a bus,
But these disconnects aren't done by the PM core; they are done by
individual drivers or subsystems.
> so I'd say a
> failure to resume is just a limited subcase of a device vanishing during
> sleep.
I'll go along with that. If a device vanishes during sleep, the PM
core isn't responsible for unregistering it -- the device's subsystem
is.
Alan Stern
--
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