Re: NAK new drivers without proper power management?

[Pavel Machek]

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.

> In the meantime, I'd like to ask the authors of new drivers to define
> error-returning .suspend() if they don't intend to define "real" .suspend()
> and .resume() for now.  When we are ready with the conversion, we'll be able
> to drop the error-returning .suspend()s and clear "pm_safe" for them.

Yes... please.
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
-
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/