Re: NAK new drivers without proper power management?

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

On Monday, 12 February 2007 21:58, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> > > > If all you need to do is say 'I don't need to do anything' and we have a
> > > > shared function that does that, all we're talking about doing is adding
> > > > to your struct pci_device (or whatever)
> > > > 
> > > > .resume = generic_empty_resume;
> > > > 
> > > > To me at least, that doesn't look awkward, and says cleanly and clearly
> > > > that you've checked things over and decided you know what's required.
> > > 
> > > Actually, I'd like it to be
> > > 
> > > .resume = generic_empty_resume; /* Explain, why your driver needs no
> > > 				   resume */
> > 
> > Okay, but we can't define an empty .resume(), because, for example, the PCI's
> > generic suspend/resume won't be called.
> 
> PCI drivers should just do .resume = pci_generic_resume, explicitely.

Well, I generally agree, but I think the idea with the "pm_safe" flag has some
advantages.  For example, the drivers that do deffine .suspend() and .resume()
which don't work correctly could be flagged as not "pm_safe" until the problems
are fixed.

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/