On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 14:26:16 -0500 (EST)
Alan Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Do I understand this correctly? You've got special handling for the
> case where a bus handler doesn't have a resume routine, but no special
> handling for the case where it doesn't have a suspend routine?
Hmm... There should be checks for both, but the code seems to suggest otherwise.
> Why bother to remove the device if neither routine exists (there won't be
> any need to revive it since the bus never got suspended)?
The bus always gets suspended. The checks are to determine if state is saved or
not. If it isn't, then a suspend/resume is treated as a removal/insertion.
> And why not simply fail the suspend if the resume routine doesn't exist
> and the suspend routine does? Maybe with an error message in the
> system log.
For the asymmetric case, I guess that would do. But I still want to remove
devices when the bus handler has no suspend handling.
Rgds
--
-- Pierre Ossman
Linux kernel, MMC maintainer http://www.kernel.org
PulseAudio, core developer http://pulseaudio.org
rdesktop, core developer http://www.rdesktop.org
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
