Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Tue, 2 Sep 2003 00:40:18 +0200 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: Fix up power managment in 2.6 |
| |
Hi!
> > > Please don't - that means undoing all the work I've put in to make > > > ARM work again, and I don't have time to play silly games like this. > > > > Okay, so Patrick broke ARM and you fixed it. But he also broke i386 and > > x86-64; and it is not at all clear that his "newer" version is better > > than the old one. [Really, what's the advantage? AFAICS it is more > > complicated and less flexible, putting "suspend" method to bus as > > oppossed to device]. > > I don't think PCI device support broke - Pat seems to have fixed up > all that fairly nicely, so the driver model change should be > transparent.
As far as I can test, yes, at least UHCI looks broken :-(. It is true that calling convention at PCI level did not change.
> The main advantage from a driver writers point of view is the disposal > of the "level" argument. (Doesn't really affect x86, PCI drivers never > had visibility of this.)
Yes, "level" is gone, instead we have very ugly -EAGAIN-means-call-me-with-interrupts-disabled hack.
> However, I'll let the PPC people justify the real reason for the driver > model change, since it was /their/ requirement that caused it, and I'm > not going to fight their battles for them. (although I seem to be doing > exactly that while wasting my time here.)
I noticed something going on, but it seem to me one more "struct bus" would have solved that... Pavel -- When do you have a heart between your knees? [Johanka's followup: and *two* hearts?] - 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/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |