On Friday, 21 of March 2008, David Brownell wrote: > On Thursday 20 March 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > Is there any reason why pci_choose_state() should try to figure out what kind > > of operation is being performed by the driver and tailor its output to that? > > It's always been specified to do that ... but it's always done > that in a buggy way. (Which is why USB never used it.) I hope you realize that your change will affect all drivers calling pci_choose_state() on ACPI systems on FREEZE/PRETHAW in a hard to predict way? Perhaps some of them actually rely on getting D3hot on FREEZE, for example? > > I don't think so. Rather, the driver should know what it's doing and either > > call pci_choose_state() or not. If the state of the device is not to be > > changed, there's no reason to call pci_choose_state() at all. > > You seem to object to letting drivers offload this particular > bit of work to infrastructure. No, I don't. I just don't think it's a good idea to change the existing and widely used function for this purpose. If I needed some specific functionality at the infrastructure level, I'd add a new function for that with a new changelog etc. Then, made drivers switch to that and remove the old one. > What's the dividing line between being OK to offload vs not eing OK? Why not > let the drivers make that choice? > > > > [Note that with the new suspend/hibernation callbacks there > > won't be the pm_message_t argument to pass to pci_choose_state().] > > The pm_message_t will necessarily linger until all drivers have > been converted and re-tested. Which can't be an overnight thing. No, it can't. Still, suppose a driver is using the new callbacks. How is it supposed to use pci_choose_state()? Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
