--- David Brownell <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >+/* Suspend/resume in "struct device_driver" don't really need that
> > > >+ * strange third parameter, so we just make it a constant and expect
> > > >+ * SPI drivers to ignore it just like most platform drivers do.
> > > >+ *
> > >
> > > So you just ignored my letter on that subject :(
> > > The fact that you don't need it doesn't mean that other people won't.
> > > The fact that there's no clean way to suspend USB doesn't mean that
> > > there shouldn't be one for SPI.
> >
> > The third parameter is obsolete and should only be used to select _one_
> > of the tree suspend calls you will get.
>
> Vitaly ... comments from Russell and Pavel both addresses your comments
> about that obsolete parameter. What letter? The one I remember was
> one responding to Mark Underwood (?) where you complained about issuing
> three calls for one suspend event. You can't have it both ways!!
> Either that parameter should be used in the documented way (call the
> suspend method three times, one right after another) or it should be used
> more sanely (parameter is constant.
Yes, that was in reply to my SPI subsystem patch set (in which Vitaly didn't like the fact that I
call suspend/resume 3 times) and then in the same thread (in answer to David's response of
dropping this as he didn't think anyone would mind this) Vitaly said that you can't do this.
>
> USB can suspend just fine, thank you, though starting with 2.6.12 some
> bugs seem to have crept in; fixes are in the 2.6.15 prepatchces.
>
>
> > Any additional suspend calls should _not_ create extra usage of this
> > parameter. It's a left over from Pat's first driver model incarnation
> > which is specific to the platform device drivers. (Mainly it exists
> > because no one can be bothered to clean it up.)
>
> Most folk who've considered the question would like to see it go away.
> Except ... making sure every driver in a few dozen architectures still
> builds after removing that parameter is more than the usual amount of
> janitorial work!
>
> Progress could start by updating Documentation/driver-model/driver.txt to
> say "don't test that parameter", reducing future confusion on this point.
Thank you! That would clear up this confusion :).
>
> - Dave
>
> -
> 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/
>
___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
-
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]
