Re: [linux-pm] driver power operations (was Re: suspend2 merge)

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]>

• 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]>

• 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):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]