Re: NAK new drivers without proper power management?

[Nigel Cunningham]

Hi.

On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 16:57 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > 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'?

Agreed.

Regards,

Nigel

-
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/