On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 10:38:39AM -0700, David Brownell wrote:
> > > > > And we also need to be able to handle devices in the device tree that do
> > > > > not have a suspend/resume function ...
> > > >
> > > > Ah, there's the rub. If a driver doesn't have suspend/resume methods, is
> > > > it because it doesn't need them, or is it because nobody has written them
> > > > yet? In the latter case, failing the suspend or unbinding the driver are
> > > > the only safe courses.
> > >
> > > No, if it's not there, just expect that it knows what it is doing, and
> > > don't fail the thing. Unless you want to add those methods to _every_
> > > driver in the kernel, and that's going to be a lot of work...
>
> It seems reasonable to me to require that drivers have at least
> stub "it's actually OK to do nothing here" suspend/resume methods.
No, the point is that these devices have no driver associated with them.
They are "class" devices, and as such, are virtual.
Hm, well, I guess I should go add the suspend callbacks to the class, as
Linus's core changes is going to be expecting that...
Anyway, for virtual devices, it often times makes no sense to have a
suspend function, and as such, they should not be required to provide a
null function...
thanks,
greg k-h
-
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]
