Re: [Fwd: [PATCH] [PNP][RFC] Suspend support for PNP bus.]

[Pierre Ossman <drzeus-list@drzeus.cx>]

Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On 11/4/05, Pierre Ossman <drzeus-list@drzeus.cx> wrote:
>   
>> +
>> +int pnp_start_dev(struct pnp_dev *dev)
>> +{
>> +       if (!pnp_can_write(dev)) {
>> +               pnp_info("Device %s does not supported activation.", dev->dev.bus_id);
>>     
>
> "...does not support...", there is no "ed" at the end.
>
>   

That's just code that's been moved around. But I suppose a speling fix 
could be included in the same patch. :)

>> +               return -EINVAL;
>> +       }
>>     
>
> Hmm, would'nt presence of such device stop suspend process? It will
> cause pnp_bus_resume to fail too. Perhaps returning 0 in this case is
> better.
>
>   

The problem is that this code is also visited from pnp_activate_dev() & 
co where this return value is needed. For pnp_stop_dev() the same check 
(pnp_can_disable()) is performed in the suspend routine to avoid that 
particular problem. For resume my assumption was that a device that 
doesn't support activation will not have a driver attached to it. 
Perhaps this is wrong?

Rgds
Pierre