On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > Perhaps it's better to include dpm_sysfs_add() into device_pm_add(), since we > > > are going the make the return a result anyway? > > > > Yes. > > Okay, I'll prepare a patch for that, on top of the one introducing the > 'sleeping' field into 'struct dev_pm_info' (posting in a while). While you're at it, could you add a field to indicate whether begin_sleep() has been called? It would help prevent multiple calls to that method when a race does occur, and it could be useful for drivers as well. > The question remains what we're going to do with the drivers without pm_ops > pointers in the long run (in the short run we will use the legacy callbacks in > that cases, if defined). One possibility is to unbind those drivers at the start of a sleep transition and reprobe them at the end. Another possibility is to ignore the lack of PM support and hope it doesn't cause any problems. Alan Stern _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
