On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 11:35 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Saturday 09 January 2010, Jesse Barnes wrote: >> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 16:50:57 -0800 (PST) >> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > >> > >> > On Sat, 9 Jan 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> > > >> > > Which is functionally equivalent to my patch, because >> > > i915_suspend/resume() won't be called by drm_class_suspend/resume() >> > > in the KMS case anyway. >> > >> > Ahh, right you are - that class suspend function does a check for >> > DRIVER_MODESET, and only does the suspend/resume if it's not a >> > MODESET driver. >> > >> > Ok, so I withdraw my objections to your original patch - it's >> > confusing, but that's just because DRM is such a horrible mess with >> > subtle things. >> >> Yeah the non-KMS paths just suck. >> >> Acked-by: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Though hopefully you can get the PCI driver registration working w/o >> too much trouble; that would be even better. > > Actually, I have a working patch, with one tiny detail I'm not sure of. > > Namely, I need to call pci_set_drvdata(pdev, dev) unconditionally in drm_stub.c > for the things to work, but I _think_ it won't hurt even if we're not going to > use the pdev's private data. > > The benefit of this is having just one code path for suspend/resume instead of > two different code paths depending on whether the driver is using the KMS or > not, which is well worth it IMO. > > The patch is appended. NAK for the reasons I explained in the previous email. This conflicts with systems where intelfb and intel drm are used together, this is something that ppl do use prior to KMS happening. We just need to document in the headers why the hooks are needed, and maybe a bit of patch review to make sure nobody removes them again. Dave. _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
