Re: NAK new drivers without proper power management?
- From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 21:31:32 +0100
On Monday, 12 February 2007 17:52, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
By adding dummy functions, wouldn't that just look awkward ?Neither am I. I'm just asking that new drivers have power management as
standard.
What if the hardware doesn't support power management ?
You would still want to do the cleanup and configuration that you'd do
for module load/unload.
If all you need to do is say 'I don't need to do anything' and we have a
shared function that does that, all we're talking about doing is adding
to your struct pci_device (or whatever)
.resume = generic_empty_resume;
To me at least, that doesn't look awkward, and says cleanly and clearly
that you've checked things over and decided you know what's required.
Actually, I'd like it to be
.resume = generic_empty_resume; /* Explain, why your driver needs no
resume */
Okay, but we can't define an empty .resume(), because, for example, the PCI's
generic suspend/resume won't be called.
I think we can introduce a "pm_safe" flag that will indicate if the driver
handles suspend/resume correctly. If we do it, we can flag all of the drivers
currently in the tree as "pm_safe" unless we know that they aren't. Next,
we can convert the core to fail the suspend for any driver that is not flagged
as "pm_safe". But I think that will take time.
In the meantime, I'd like to ask the authors of new drivers to define
error-returning .suspend() if they don't intend to define "real" .suspend()
and .resume() for now. When we are ready with the conversion, we'll be able
to drop the error-returning .suspend()s and clear "pm_safe" for them.
Greetings,
Rafael
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: NAK new drivers without proper power management?
- From: Tilman Schmidt
- Re: NAK new drivers without proper power management?
- From: Pavel Machek
- Re: NAK new drivers without proper power management?
- References:
- Re: NAK new drivers without proper power management?
- From: Arjan van de Ven
- Re: NAK new drivers without proper power management?
- From: Nigel Cunningham
- Re: NAK new drivers without proper power management?
- From: Pavel Machek
- Re: NAK new drivers without proper power management?
- Prev by Date: Re: pcim_enable_device BUGs for libata devices in 2.6.20-git6
- Next by Date: Re: NAK new drivers without proper power management?
- Previous by thread: Re: NAK new drivers without proper power management?
- Next by thread: Re: NAK new drivers without proper power management?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|