On Sat, Sep 05, 2009 at 02:13:50PM +0000, Izumi Tsutsui wrote:
> Module Name: src
> Committed By: tsutsui
> Date: Sat Sep 5 14:13:50 UTC 2009
>
> Modified Files:
> src/sys/dev/pci: if_an_pci.c if_ath_pci.c if_fxp_pci.c if_gem_pci.c
> if_rtk_pci.c if_rtw_pci.c if_wi_pci.c
>
> Log Message:
> Invert logic around nested pmf(9) registrations for readability.
>
> XXX: should these pmf(9) calls be moved into MI attach functions
> XXX: using function pointers for suspend and resume passed via softc?
I think that we would add callbacks to many, many softc's, like we did
with the enable/disable routines. Lots of code would be duplicated. I
am gradually replacing those routines with self-suspension. PMF should
handle bus-independent/bus-dependent suspend/resume, too.
Let the programmer of drivers add a bus-dependent PMF hook in the bus
attachment routine, and a bus-independent PMF hook in the generic attach
routine. Something like this, for example,
static bool
rtw_pci_suspend(device_t self ...)
{
/* ... */
/* no call to rtw_suspend, here! */
/* ... */
return true;
}
static bool
rtw_pci_resume(device_t self ...)
{
/* ... */
/* no call to rtw_resume, here! */
/* ... */
return true;
}
static void
rtw_pci_attach(device_t parent, device_t self, void *aux)
{
/* ... */
pmf_device_register_for_bus(self, rtw_pci_suspend, rtw_pci_resume);
/* ... */
}
void
rtw_attach(struct rtw_softc *sc)
{
/* ... */
if (pmf_device_register(self, rtw_suspend, rtw_resume)) {
pmf_class_network_register(self, &sc->sc_if);
/* ... */
}
/* ... */
}
Dave
--
David Young OJC Technologies
dyo...@ojctech.com Urbana, IL * (217) 278-3933
