Hi, On Friday, 9 February 2007 23:51, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > Hi. > > On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 23:44 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Friday, 9 February 2007 23:26, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > > Hi. > > > > > > On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 23:17 +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > > On Sat, 2007-02-10 at 08:57 +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > > > > Hi. > > > > > > > > > > I don't think this is already done (feel free to correct me if I'm > > > > > wrong).. > > > > > > > > > > Can we start to NAK new drivers that don't have proper power management > > > > > implemented? There really is no excuse for writing a new driver and not > > > > > putting .suspend and .resume methods in anymore, is there? > > > > > > > > > > > > to a large degree, a device driver that doesn't suspend is better than > > > > no device driver at all, right? > > > > > > I'm not sure it is. It only makes more work for everyone else: We have > > > to help people figure out what causes their computer to fail to resume > > > (which can take quite a while), then get them them complain to driver > > > author, and the driver author has to submit patches to fix it. > > > > > > All of this is avoided if they'll just do it right in the first place. > > > > > > > now.. if you want to make the core warn about it, that's very fair > > > > > > That's probably a good idea too, since I'm only suggesting this for new > > > drivers. > > > > I think if CONFIG_PM_DEBUG is set, the core should warn about drivers not > > having .suspend or .resume routines. > > The only problem with that is, not everyone turns on CONFIG_PM_DEBUG. > CONFIG_PM instead? Well, I can imagine a driver that doesn't need a .suspend routine, for example, and I don't think we should make the kernel always complain about that. I think if someone doesn't set CONFIG_PM_DEBUG, we can ask him to set it and report back. Greetings, Rafael
