Hi!
> > > > Can we start to NAK new drivers that don't have proper power management
> > > > implemented? There really is no excuse for writing a new driver and not
> > > > putting .suspend and .resume methods in anymore, is there?
> > >
> > > to a large degree, a device driver that doesn't suspend is better than
> > > no device driver at all, right?
> > > now.. if you want to make the core warn about it, that's very fair
> >
> > Well, driver that is broken on SMP is arguably better than no driver
> > at all, yet we'd probably avoid merging that. It would be nice to
> > start including suspend in 'must work' list...
>
> What about this:
>
> "If the device requires that, implement .suspend and .resume or at least
> define .suspend that will always return -ENOSYS (then people will know they
> have to unload the driver before the suspend). Similarly, if you aren't sure
> whether or not the device requires .suspend and .resume, define .suspend that
> will always return -ENOSYS."
Sounds ok to me. Where should this text go?
Documentation/SubmittingDrivers ?
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
-
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]
