On Wed, July 1, 2009 01:11, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Tuesday 30 June 2009 3:10:47 pm Andrew Morton wrote: >> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 07:18:31 +0200 >> David Härdeman <david@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> This reintroduces the .shutdown method which is used by the >>> winbond-cir driver. A normal revert wasn't possible since there >>> had been other changes to include/acpi/acpi_bus.h since. >> >> Len, Bjorn: is this OK? Or is there some other mechanism which the >> driver should have used? > > I'm on vacation and don't have time to read the new winbond driver > right now, but maybe it could be changed so that wbcir_shutdown() > is an internal function called by wbcir_suspend() (as it is already) > and wbcir_remove(). I didn't want to call wbcir_shutdown from wbcir_remove since wbcir_remove is called on rmmod and the wbcir_shutdown method programs the chip so that wake-on-a-specific-ir-command is enabled (and I imagine that people would expect rmmod to disable the hardware completely). I will clarify the function names a bit in the next version of the patch... As far as I could understand from my testing, the acpi .suspend method is not called during shutdown which is why I needed to hook into both .suspend and .shutdown separately. > I hate to re-introduce .shutdown when it's only used by a single > driver. That makes me think either we have a bunch of drivers that > are buggy because they *should* have .shutdown methods but don't, > or the single user of .shutdown doesn't have a real dependency on it. I think this single user does have a real dependency because of its wake-from-poweroff and wake-from-suspend capability. But I could be mistaken... > The winbond driver does not use any ACPI-specific functionality, so > it might be simpler to write it as a PNP driver (which would depend > on PNPACPI, of course). As far as I could tell from a quick look at include/linux/pnp.h, a pnp_driver doesn't seem to have any .shutdown methods either, so I'm not sure how it would help? (On a related note, it seems inconsistent to me that platform_driver has a .shutdown method while pnp_driver and acpi_driver doesn't.) If you disagree with acpi_driver regaining the .shutdown method I guess the only options are to use register_reboot_notifier or to rewrite the driver as a platform_driver (Alan Cox seemed to suggest earlier that the driver was not a good fit for a platform driver). > Nice looking driver, by the way. Even from a cursory glance it's > obvious that you've taken a lot of care with it. Thank you, and have a nice vacation. Regards, David -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
