Hi.

On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 00:16 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
quoted text
> On Monday, 12 February 2007 00:10, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > Hi.
> > 
> > On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 21:02 +0000, Alan wrote:
> > > > > "If the device requires that, implement .suspend and .resume or at least
> > > > > define .suspend that will always return -ENOSYS (then people will know they
> > > > > have to unload the driver before the suspend).  Similarly, if you aren't sure
> > > > > whether or not the device requires .suspend and .resume, define .suspend that
> > > > > will always return -ENOSYS."
> > > > 
> > > > Sounds ok to me. Where should this text go?
> > > > Documentation/SubmittingDrivers ?
> > > 
> > > And testing/submitting drivers, perhaps with additional text in that to
> > > make it clear we want suspend/resume support or good excuses
> > > 
> > > "Please verify your driver correctly handles suspend and resume. If it
> > > does not your patch submission is likely to be suspended and only resume
> > > when the driver correctly handles this feature"
> > 
> > Maybe make it explicit that testing should be done for both suspend to
> > ram and to disk, and with the following usage scenarios as applicable?
> > 
> > - built in;
> > - modular, loaded while suspending but not loaded prior to resume from
> > disk;
> > - modular, loaded while suspending and loaded prior to resume from disk;
> 
> I think we should state the general rule in Documentation/SubmittingDrivers
> and give more details in Documentation/power/devices.txt

Sounds good.

Regards,

Nigel

-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/