Re: [RFC][PATCH] PM: Introduce new top level suspend and hibernation callbacks (rev. 6)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Am Mittwoch, 2. April 2008 16:11:14 schrieb Alan Stern:
> > However, I'd like to add a recommendation that the _new_ "resume" callbacks
> > should only return errors in critical situations as the indication to the PM
> > core that something went _really_ wrong and the device in question is quite
> > surely unusable.
> 
> Agreed.  The most important aspect is that drivers should _not_ return
> an error if the device is working correctly.  We should fix the drivers 
> which make this mistake.

We need to do something about devices that don't want to be resumed.
There's code like this:


static int usb_resume(struct device *dev)
{
	struct usb_device	*udev;

	if (!is_usb_device(dev))	/* Ignore PM for interfaces */
		return 0;
	udev = to_usb_device(dev);

	/* If udev->skip_sys_resume is set then udev was already suspended
	 * when the system suspend started, so we don't want to resume
	 * udev during this system wakeup.  However a reset-resume counts
	 * as a wakeup event, so allow a reset-resume to occur if remote
	 * wakeup is enabled. */
	if (udev->skip_sys_resume) {
		if (!(udev->reset_resume && udev->do_remote_wakeup))
			return -EHOSTUNREACH;
	}
	return usb_external_resume_device(udev);
}

Do we want to keep this in the subsystems?

	Regards
		Oliver
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm


[Index of Archives]     [Linux ACPI]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [CPU Freq]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux