On Thursday, January 31, 2013 11:58:54 AM Paul Bolle wrote: > On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 14:47 +0800, Gu Zheng wrote: > > On 01/30/2013 04:31 PM, Paul Bolle wrote: > > > 2) Regarding the errors I see at resume: it seems that if a device > > > already exists when board_added() is called, this almost certainly means > > > we're resuming with the same device we suspended with. So there's no > > > reason to send errors to the log. > > > > No, It's hard to detect whether the existed device is the one you want to resume. > > Maybe the existed device was added during suspend, and the one you really want to > > resume was removed. > > Because the domain, bus, slot, and function being equal doesn't mean > it's the same device? (I had to look up those names in man 8 lspci, I'm > unfamiliar with all this.) No, that's not sufficient in general. > Could an additional test on vendor ID and device ID help. Ie, if > board_added() and friends notice a device already exists and the > previous an current device have identical IDs, would we then know all > that's needed to not bother to scare people with errors? Yes, that's roughly the way to go in my opinion. Thanks, Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
