On Wed, 2004-11-03 at 02:17 +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > How would you define this if you wanted to make it "event"? It does > not really change state of driver. State of driver is still ON, but > something alocated, etc. Well... where did we say that "events" had to change the state of a driver ? Some do ... but we can define some that don't and are purely informational... For example, the ability for userland to force-trigger driver local PM policy could be implemented by calling a suspend with a special event, that sort of thing... > Hmm, maybe that list-based callback is not so bad idea after > all. Because otherwise we'd need to deal with suspend / resume > nesting, and that looks ugly. Oops. Not really. I've done it in the past for pmac before the driver model was there. As long as the common code doesn't keep a state, it's fine. Ben.
