Re: [linux-pm] driver power operations (was Re: suspend2 merge)
- From: Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 16:49:51 +0200
On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 16:39 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
Good point. Though if we go for passing the interrupt-enable setting as
an argument then many drivers will have the same
"if (irqs_disabled()) return" code. Hm. I guess passing it isn't even
strictly necessary.
Eh, the point I actually wanted to make is that many drivers don't care
for the irqs disabled case and would have to add code to exclude it.
johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [linux-pm] driver power operations (was Re: suspend2 merge)
- From: Linus Torvalds
- Re: [linux-pm] driver power operations (was Re: suspend2 merge)
- From: Rafael J. Wysocki
- Re: [linux-pm] driver power operations (was Re: suspend2 merge)
- References:
- Re: [linux-pm] driver power operations (was Re: suspend2 merge)
- From: Alan Stern
- Re: [linux-pm] driver power operations (was Re: suspend2 merge)
- From: Johannes Berg
- Re: [linux-pm] driver power operations (was Re: suspend2 merge)
- Prev by Date: Re: Bitbanging i2c bus driver using the GPIO API
- Next by Date: Re: Back to the future.
- Previous by thread: Re: [linux-pm] driver power operations (was Re: suspend2 merge)
- Next by thread: Re: [linux-pm] driver power operations (was Re: suspend2 merge)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|