On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 08:50:27PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday, 10 February 2007 18:52, Daniel Barkalow wrote:
> > On Sat, 10 Feb 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > > On Saturday, 10 February 2007 11:02, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > >
> > > > Well, the original desire was to stop new drivers getting in without
> > > > proper power management.
> > >
> > > I know, but I agree with the argument that having a driver without the
> > > suspend/resume support is better than not having the driver at all.
> >
> > How about if "proper power management" is defined to include the driver
> > explicitly preventing suspend? It seems to me like the current problem is
> > that driver writers don't think about power management at all, and the
> > result is that, after suspend/resume, the system doesn't come back. It
> > would be better if driver writers had to think about power management just
> > enough to realize that it's not going to work, and make this information
> > available to the system. At that point, it's relatively easy for the
> > system to do something useful about it.
>
> Actually, it is easy for the driver authors to do this right now. They can
> just make the .suspend() routine always return an error.
>
> Well, I think this is a good idea: if the device in question requires specific
> power management during the suspend/resume, but it is not implemented by the
> driver, we should require the author of the driver to define the .suspend()
> routine that returns -ENOSYS (preferably, with an explanatory warning in
> dmesg).
instead of modifying all drivers to explicitly state that they don't support
it, we should start with a test of the NULL pointer for .suspend which should
mean exactly the same without modifying the drivers. I find it obvious that
a driver which does provide a suspend function will not support it. And if
some drivers (eg /dev/null) can support it anyway, it's better to change
*those* drivers to explicitly mark them as compatible.
regards,
Willy
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
