On Friday, 9 February 2007 23:26, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 23:17 +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > On Sat, 2007-02-10 at 08:57 +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > > 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?
> >
> >
> > to a large degree, a device driver that doesn't suspend is better than
> > no device driver at all, right?
>
> I'm not sure it is. It only makes more work for everyone else: We have
> to help people figure out what causes their computer to fail to resume
> (which can take quite a while), then get them them complain to driver
> author, and the driver author has to submit patches to fix it.
>
> All of this is avoided if they'll just do it right in the first place.
>
> > now.. if you want to make the core warn about it, that's very fair
>
> That's probably a good idea too, since I'm only suggesting this for new
> drivers.
I think if CONFIG_PM_DEBUG is set, the core should warn about drivers not
having .suspend or .resume routines.
Greetings,
Rafael
--
If you don't have the time to read,
you don't have the time or the tools to write.
- Stephen King
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
