Subject: Re: NAK new drivers without proper power management?
From: Nigel Cunningham <nigel@nigel.suspend2.net>
Reply-To: nigel@nigel.suspend2.net
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <1171059433.8675.195.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
References: <1171058269.1484.64.camel@nigel.suspend2.net>
	 <1171059433.8675.195.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 09:26:08 +1100
Message-Id: <1171059968.1484.90.camel@nigel.suspend2.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1317
Lines: 38

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.

Regards,

Nigel

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/