Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 28 Mar 2005 10:43:39 -0800 (PST) | From | Patrick Mochel <> | Subject | Re: klists and struct device semaphores |
| |
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005, David Brownell wrote:
> On Monday 28 March 2005 9:44 am, Patrick Mochel wrote: > > > How is this related to (8) above? Do you need some sort of protected, > > short path through the core to add the device, but not bind it or add it > > to the PM core? > > Erm, why is there a distinction between "adding device" and "adding it > to the PM core"? That's a conceptual problem right there. There > should be no distinctio. (But it does make eminent sense to be able > to add a device without necessarily binding it to a driver, since > the "unbound driver" state is all over the place.)
Don't get too excited; there is no distinction.
He seemed to imply that it would be useful for interfaces to be added without having the possibility of being suspended until all the interfaces of a device were added. I'm simply trying to understand what he thinks is necessary.
Pat
- 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/
| |