On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 16:39 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > Good point. Though if we go for passing the interrupt-enable setting as > an argument then many drivers will have the same > "if (irqs_disabled()) return" code. Hm. I guess passing it isn't even > strictly necessary. Eh, the point I actually wanted to make is that many drivers don't care for the irqs disabled case and would have to add code to exclude it. johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [linux-pm] driver power operations (was Re: suspend2 merge)
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: [linux-pm] driver power operations (was Re: suspend2 merge)
- From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[email protected]>
- Re: [linux-pm] driver power operations (was Re: suspend2 merge)
- References:
- Re: [linux-pm] driver power operations (was Re: suspend2 merge)
- From: Alan Stern <[email protected]>
- Re: [linux-pm] driver power operations (was Re: suspend2 merge)
- From: Johannes Berg <[email protected]>
- Re: [linux-pm] driver power operations (was Re: suspend2 merge)
- Prev by Date: Re: Bitbanging i2c bus driver using the GPIO API
- Next by Date: Re: Back to the future.
- Previous by thread: Re: [linux-pm] driver power operations (was Re: suspend2 merge)
- Next by thread: Re: [linux-pm] driver power operations (was Re: suspend2 merge)
- Index(es):