On Thu, 21 Feb 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:First off, nobody should *ever* use that directly anyway. Secondly, the one that people should use ("pci_choose_state()") doesn't actually do what you claim it does. It does all kinds of wrong things, and doesn't even take the target state into account at all. So look again. And again, what does this have to do with (the example I used) the graphics hardware? Answer: nothing. The example I gave you we simply DO THE WRONG THING FOR. Same thing for things like USB devices - where pci_choose_state() doesn't work to begin with. Why do we call "suspend()" on such a thing when we don't want to suspend it? We shouldn't. We should call "freeze/unfreeze" (which are no-ops) and then finally perhaps "poweroff", and that final stage might want to spin things down or similar. But *none* of it has anything to do with suspend, and none of it has anything to do with pci_choose_state() (much less acpi_pci_choose_state) The fact is, we should let the driver decide, and we should make it clear to the driver writer what he is deciding about - rather than basically lie and say "suspend the device and put it into D3" even when that's the last thing it should ever do. Linus --
| Ingo Molnar | [announce] "kill the Big Kernel Lock (BKL)" tree |
| Greg KH | [GIT PATCH] driver core patches against 2.6.24 |
| Emmanuel Florac | RAID-1 performance under 2.4 and 2.6 |
| Con Kolivas | Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23 |
git: | |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 0/37] dccp: Feature negotiation - last call for comments |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Eric W. Biederman | Re: 2.6.24-rc3: find complains about /proc/net |
| David Miller | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
