Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On 11/4/05, Pierre Ossman <[email protected]> wrote:
+
+int pnp_start_dev(struct pnp_dev *dev)
+{
+ if (!pnp_can_write(dev)) {
+ pnp_info("Device %s does not supported activation.", dev->dev.bus_id);
"...does not support...", there is no "ed" at the end.
That's just code that's been moved around. But I suppose a speling fix
could be included in the same patch. :)
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
Hmm, would'nt presence of such device stop suspend process? It will
cause pnp_bus_resume to fail too. Perhaps returning 0 in this case is
better.
The problem is that this code is also visited from pnp_activate_dev() &
co where this return value is needed. For pnp_stop_dev() the same check
(pnp_can_disable()) is performed in the suspend routine to avoid that
particular problem. For resume my assumption was that a device that
doesn't support activation will not have a driver attached to it.
Perhaps this is wrong?
Rgds
Pierre
-
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]
