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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
