Subject: Re: NAK new drivers without proper power management?
From: Nigel Cunningham <nigel@nigel.suspend2.net>
Reply-To: nigel@nigel.suspend2.net
To: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20070210034210.GB16490@srcf.ucam.org>
References: <1171058269.1484.64.camel@nigel.suspend2.net>
	 <20070210034210.GB16490@srcf.ucam.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 15:42:56 +1100
Message-Id: <1171082576.10170.20.camel@nigel.suspend2.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 928
Lines: 25

Hi.

On Sat, 2007-02-10 at 03:42 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 08:57:49AM +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> 
> > 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?
> 
> The PCI layer is able to deal with drivers that have no PM methods in 
> the most simple case.

Yeah. I suppose we could use a pm_safe bit flag in struct device_driver
and/or struct pci_driver. I have other things to do right now, but will
seek to understand the relationship between those structs better later.

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/