lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH] PM: Introduce new top level suspend and hibernation callbacks (rev. 6)
Date
On Tuesday, 1 of April 2008, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Tue, 2008-04-01 at 16:56 -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > > > Does ..._ext_... mean extended? (external?) If 'extended' (or if not),
> > > > does that imply that they're mutually exclusive alternatives for drivers
> > > > to use?
> > >
> > > 'ext' means 'extended'. The idea is that the 'extended' version will be used
> > > by bus types / driver types that don't need to implement the _noirq callbacks.
> >
> > Something's wrong here. This seems to say that the "extended" version
> > has _fewer_ method pointers -- in which case it should be called
> > "restricted" instead.
>
> Agreed.

This was a mistake explained in another message. The "don't" should not be
present in the above sentence.

> > > > So drivers can never validly fail to resume. That sounds fair enough. If
> > > > the hardware has gone away while in lower power mode (USB, say), should
> > > > the driver then just printk an error and return success?
> > >
> > > I think so.
> > >
> > > IMO, an error code returned by a driver's ->resume() should mean "the device
> > > hasn't resumed and is presumably dead". Otherwise, ->resume() should return
> > > success.
> >
> > If the device is gone, it doesn't much matter what resume() returns.
>
> What if the same driver is handling multiple instances and only some of
> them fail to resume?

->resume() will be called separately for each of them.

Thanks,
Rafael


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-04-02 00:03    [W:0.083 / U:0.072 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site