From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Willy Tarreau Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: NAK new drivers without proper power management? Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 07:54:04 +0100 Message-ID: <20070211065404.GA943@1wt.eu> References: <200702101130.44471.rjw@sisk.pl> <200702102050.28218.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200702102050.28218.rjw@sisk.pl> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.osdl.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.osdl.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Robert Hancock , Jeff Garzik , Pavel Machek , Daniel Barkalow , pm list , linux-kernel List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 08:50:27PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Saturday, 10 February 2007 18:52, Daniel Barkalow wrote: > > On Sat, 10 Feb 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > = > > > On Saturday, 10 February 2007 11:02, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > > > > > > Well, the original desire was to stop new drivers getting in without > > > > proper power management. > > > = > > > I know, but I agree with the argument that having a driver without the > > > suspend/resume support is better than not having the driver at all. > > = > > How about if "proper power management" is defined to include the driver = > > explicitly preventing suspend? It seems to me like the current problem = is = > > that driver writers don't think about power management at all, and the = > > result is that, after suspend/resume, the system doesn't come back. It = > > would be better if driver writers had to think about power management j= ust = > > enough to realize that it's not going to work, and make this informatio= n = > > available to the system. At that point, it's relatively easy for the = > > system to do something useful about it. > = > Actually, it is easy for the driver authors to do this right now. They c= an > just make the .suspend() routine always return an error. > = > Well, I think this is a good idea: if the device in question requires spe= cific > power management during the suspend/resume, but it is not implemented by = the > driver, we should require the author of the driver to define the .suspend= () > routine that returns -ENOSYS (preferably, with an explanatory warning in > dmesg). instead of modifying all drivers to explicitly state that they don't support it, we should start with a test of the NULL pointer for .suspend which shou= ld mean exactly the same without modifying the drivers. I find it obvious that a driver which does provide a suspend function will not support it. And if some drivers (eg /dev/null) can support it anyway, it's better to change *those* drivers to explicitly mark them as compatible. regards, Willy