Re: NAK new drivers without proper power management?

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>]

On Sunday, 11 February 2007 07:46, Willy Tarreau wrote:
[--snip--]

> What I really think would be a clean solution would be sort of
> a capability. Either the driver *is* suspend/resume-capable, and
> the system can be suspended. Or it is not, and the system must
> refuse to suspend. It should not be a problem to proceed like
> this because drivers which will not support suspend will mainly
> be those which will not have to. And if a user occasionnaly
> complains that one driver does not support it, at least you will
> have a good argument against its author to implement suspend.

I agree, but the suspend/resume safeness has to be somehow indicated by
the driver.  We could add a flag for that, but it would require us to modify
lots of existing drivers (unless there's something obvious I don't see).
However, the driver can effectively say "I'm not suspend/resume-safe" by
returning an error from .suspend(), in which case the system will automatically
refuse to suspend.

Greetings,
Rafael
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/