From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752388AbXBIV5u (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Feb 2007 16:57:50 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752446AbXBIV5u (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Feb 2007 16:57:50 -0500 Received: from nigel.suspend2.net ([203.171.70.205]:40901 "EHLO nigel.suspend2.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752388AbXBIV5u (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Feb 2007 16:57:50 -0500 Subject: NAK new drivers without proper power management? From: Nigel Cunningham Reply-To: nigel@nigel.suspend2.net To: LKML Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 08:57:49 +1100 Message-Id: <1171058269.1484.64.camel@nigel.suspend2.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi. I don't think this is already done (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).. Can we start to NAK new drivers that don't have proper power management implemented? There really is no excuse for writing a new driver and not putting .suspend and .resume methods in anymore, is there? Regards, Nigel-getting-sick-of-drivers-without-pm-support Cunningham