Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 09 Feb 2007 19:25:34 -0500 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Re: NAK new drivers without proper power management? |
| |
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.
A lot of a lot of things could have been avoided, if they just did it right the first time.
I think it's more valuable to users to get a basic network driver that pings or a basic ATA driver that reads/writes, than peripheral issues like suspend/resume.
Certainly we should ask for it, but it shouldn't be a merge-stopper.
Jeff
- 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/
| |