Re: NAK new drivers without proper power management?

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > "If the device requires that, implement .suspend and .resume or at least
> >                                                                   ^^^^^^^^
> > > define .suspend that will always return -ENOSYS (then people will know they
> >   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > have to unload the driver before the suspend).  Similarly, if you aren't sure
> > > whether or not the device requires .suspend and .resume, define .suspend that
> >                                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > will always return -ENOSYS."
> >   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > Can't the upper layer just assume -ENOSYS if .resume/.suspend is NULL?
> > It's nicer if you don't have to implement dummy functions at all.
> 
> Unfortunately, drivers currently assume "NULL == nothing is needed",
> so we'd have t do big search & replace... 

Which means you also cannot easily keep track of which driver supports
suspend/resume and which doesn't, as there will always be drivers where a
missing suspend/resume function is correct.

Wouldn't it be more sensible to have

    .suspend = suspend_nothing_to_do

instead, and reserve NULL for `not yet implemented'?

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

						Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
							    -- Linus Torvalds
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/