On Sat, 10 Feb 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Saturday, 10 February 2007 11:02, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > > Well, the original desire was to stop new drivers getting in without > > proper power management. > > I know, but I agree with the argument that having a driver without the > suspend/resume support is better than not having the driver at all. How about if "proper power management" is defined to include the driver explicitly preventing suspend? It seems to me like the current problem is that driver writers don't think about power management at all, and the result is that, after suspend/resume, the system doesn't come back. It would be better if driver writers had to think about power management just enough to realize that it's not going to work, and make this information available to the system. At that point, it's relatively easy for the system to do something useful about it. > Also, I think there are quite some drivers already in the tree that don't > support suspend/resume explicitly and honestly we should start from adding the > suspend/resume routines to these drivers _before_ we ban new drivers like that. It'd be relatively quick to modify all the current drivers that don't explicitly support suspend/resume to explicitly not support it. (Or to explicitly support it trivially; /dev/null obviously doesn't need anything.) -Daniel *This .sig left intentionally blank*
