On Sun, Sep 06, 2009 at 09:42:08AM +0900, Izumi Tsutsui wrote: > > > 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, > > Hmm, is multiple pmf_device_register*(9) calls against > the same device_t allowed? How should they be de-registered?
I'm suggesting different calls to register the bus-dependent & bus-independent routines. > If multiple registration is allowed, it might be better to have > pmf_device_register_shutdown() or so. I think we need a separate routine for registering shutdown handlers regardless. pmf_device_register1() takes NULL suspend/resume handlers to mean, "no driver intervention necessary to suspend/resume". Dave -- David Young OJC Technologies dyo...@ojctech.com Urbana, IL * (217) 278-3933
