Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752488AbXBIXOE (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Feb 2007 18:14:04 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752512AbXBIXOE (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Feb 2007 18:14:04 -0500 Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:59505 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752488AbXBIXOB (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Feb 2007 18:14:01 -0500 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: nigel@nigel.suspend2.net Subject: Re: NAK new drivers without proper power management? Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 00:12:16 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 Cc: Arjan van de Ven , LKML , pm list References: <1171058269.1484.64.camel@nigel.suspend2.net> <200702092344.14984.rjw@sisk.pl> <1171061489.1484.100.camel@nigel.suspend2.net> In-Reply-To: <1171061489.1484.100.camel@nigel.suspend2.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200702100012.17430.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2146 Lines: 55 Hi, On Friday, 9 February 2007 23:51, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > Hi. > > On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 23:44 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > 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. > > The only problem with that is, not everyone turns on CONFIG_PM_DEBUG. > CONFIG_PM instead? Well, I can imagine a driver that doesn't need a .suspend routine, for example, and I don't think we should make the kernel always complain about that. I think if someone doesn't set CONFIG_PM_DEBUG, we can ask him to set it and report back. Greetings, Rafael - 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/