From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Brownell Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [Ipw2100-devel] [RFC] Runtime power management on ipw2100 Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 13:08:49 -0800 Message-ID: <200702191308.49797.david-b@pacbell.net> References: <20070131075249.GA22115@srcf.ucam.org> <20070206214407.GA5254@srcf.ucam.org> <1170925306.19089.125.camel@debian.sh.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Zhu Yi , Matthew Garrett , ipw2100-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: linux-pm@lists.osdl.org Return-path: Received: from smtp102.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.198.201]:43893 "HELO smtp102.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S932652AbXBSVIx (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Feb 2007 16:08:53 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1170925306.19089.125.camel@debian.sh.intel.com> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Thursday 08 February 2007 1:01 am, Zhu Yi wrote: > A generic requirement for dynamic power management is the hardware > resource should not be touched when you put it in a low power state. That is in no way a "generic" requirement. It might apply specifically to one ipw2100 low power state ... but "in general" devices may support more than one low power state, with different levels of functionality. Not all of those levels necessarily disallow touching the hardware. > But I think > freeing the irq handler before suspend should be the right way to go. Some folk like that model a lot for shared IRQs. It shouldn't matter for non-sharable ones. - Dave