Hi!
> > On 12.02.2007 01:10 I wrote:
> > > I don't doubt your basic assessment. However it doesn't translate that
> > > easily into a real implementation. In my case, I maintain a USB driver,
> > > so I have to deal with USB specifics of suspend/resume which happen not
> > > to be that well docume
On Saturday, 3 March 2007 23:48, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> Ok, I've thought some more but I still don't know ...
>
> On 12.02.2007 01:10 I wrote:
> > I don't doubt your basic assessment. However it doesn't translate that
> > easily into a real implementation. In my case, I maintain a USB driver,
> >
Ok, I've thought some more but I still don't know ...
On 12.02.2007 01:10 I wrote:
> I don't doubt your basic assessment. However it doesn't translate that
> easily into a real implementation. In my case, I maintain a USB driver,
> so I have to deal with USB specifics of suspend/resume which happe
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> Why a new flag?
>
> For example, there are drivers that define .suspend() and .resume() which
> do not work correctly and we can use the flag to mark them.
Depending on how serious the problems with these .suspend/.resume()s
are, you could also put a printk in them or
Hi!
> > >I would disagree that it's a peripheral issue, it's pretty core these
> > >days, at least for any hardware that you can stuff in a laptop (though a
> > >fair number of desktops get suspended and resumed these days too).
> >
> > Servers are still the most important Linux market, and don't
On Tuesday, 13 February 2007 10:42, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> Rafael J. Wysocki schrieb:
> > I think we can introduce a "pm_safe" flag that will indicate if the driver
> > handles suspend/resume correctly. If we do it, we can flag all of the
> > drivers
> > currently in the tree as "pm_safe" unless
Hi!
> > I think your experience is rather different than that of Joe Average
> > User who doesn't frequent kernel lists, and also I think you'll find
> > that for a lot of Linux laptop users that don't use supend, the reason
> > is that it doesn't work reliably, quite often due to driver issues
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 10:55:18AM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
> LKML is much more receptive to drivers that follow
> the "release early, release often" mantra.
Exactly.
> Which means we really have to be more accomodating of
> drivers that start out simple, and then gain all of the
> non-essential c
Nigel Cunningham wrote:
On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 01:27 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Plus:
- What if I'm planning to implement the power managemet, but not just right
now?
Why not right now?
LKML is much more receptive to drivers that follow
the "release early, release often" mantra.
Which m
Willy Tarreau wrote:
Probably that you got the wrong laptop. If you buy an ultra-thin with highly
proprietary hardware, it may be hard. But if you choose in profesionnal ranges,
there is rarely any problem. I have a compaq nc8000 on which everything works
fine, and it boots in about 20 seconds.
Geert Uytterhoeven schrieb:
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Pavel Machek wrote:
>> > Can't the upper layer just assume -ENOSYS if .resume/.suspend is NULL?
>> > It's nicer if you don't have to implement dummy functions at all.
>>
>> Unfortunately, drivers currently assume "NULL == nothing is needed",
Mor
Rafael J. Wysocki schrieb:
> I think we can introduce a "pm_safe" flag that will indicate if the driver
> handles suspend/resume correctly. If we do it, we can flag all of the drivers
> currently in the tree as "pm_safe" unless we know that they aren't. Next,
> we can convert the core to fail the
Hi.
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 21:06 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, 12 February 2007 05:08, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > Nope. I'm assuming that the driver author knows what needs to be done to
> > get the driver out of whatever state the BIOS puts it in to start with,
> > and into an oper
Hi.
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 06:19 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> One less "myth" as Nigel would say call it ;-)
You know me too well! :>
-
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.kerne
On Monday, 12 February 2007 22:24, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 22:01 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, 12 February 2007 21:58, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > > > > If all you need to do is say 'I don't need to do anything' and we
> > > > > > ha
Hi.
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 22:01 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, 12 February 2007 21:58, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > > > > If all you need to do is say 'I don't need to do anything' and we
> > > > > have a
> > > > > shared function that does that, all we're talking about doin
On Monday, 12 February 2007 21:58, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > > If all you need to do is say 'I don't need to do anything' and we have a
> > > > shared function that does that, all we're talking about doing is adding
> > > > to your struct pci_device (or whatever)
> > > >
> > > > .resume =
Hi.
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 16:57 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > Can't the upper layer just assume -ENOSYS if .resume/.suspend is NULL?
> > > It's nicer if you don't have to implement dummy functions at all.
> >
> > Unfortunately, drivers currently
Hi!
> > > If all you need to do is say 'I don't need to do anything' and we have a
> > > shared function that does that, all we're talking about doing is adding
> > > to your struct pci_device (or whatever)
> > >
> > > .resume = generic_empty_resume;
> > >
> > > To me at least, that doesn't look
On Monday, 12 February 2007 17:52, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > > > > Neither am I. I'm just asking that new drivers have power
> > > > > > management as
> > > > > > standard.
> > > >
> > > > > What if the hardware doesn't support power management ?
> > > >
> > > > You would still want to do
On Monday, 12 February 2007 13:59, Gerhard Mack wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 09:37:06AM +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2007-02-10 at 23:20 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > Many people also have Linux on their notebooks, but
On Monday, 12 February 2007 06:19, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 12:26:52AM +, Alan wrote:
> > > Unless I'm mistaken, I have to type the passphrase twice then :
> > > - once at suspend
> > > - once at resume
> > >
> > > which is once more per "boot" than what I'm doing on
On Monday, 12 February 2007 05:08, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Howdy!
>
> On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 01:10 +0100, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Am 11.02.2007 23:37 schrieb Nigel Cunningham:
> > > On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 00:45 +0100, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> > >> Am 10.02.2007 23:37 schrieb Nigel Cu
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 07:59:40AM -0500, Gerhard Mack wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 09:37:06AM +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2007-02-10 at 23:20 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > Many people also have Linux on their notebook
Hi!
> > > > "If the device requires that, implement .suspend and .resume or at least
> > >
> > > > define .suspend that will always return -ENOSYS (then people will know
> > > > they
> > > ^^^
Hi!
> > > > > Neither am I. I'm just asking that new drivers have power management
> > > > > as
> > > > > standard.
> > >
> > > > What if the hardware doesn't support power management ?
> > >
> > > You would still want to do the cleanup and configuration that you'd do
> > > for module load/unload
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Pavel Machek 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
> > ^
Hi!
> > "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
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 07:46:36 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
[...]
> Many people also have Linux on their notebooks, but as a dual-boot. You
> read the word ? "dual-boot". It means that they cleanly shutdown their
> system every time they don't use it anymore, and they won't know what
> OS they'l
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 09:37:06AM +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > On Sat, 2007-02-10 at 23:20 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> Many people also have Linux on their notebooks, but as a dual-boot. You
> read the word ? "dual-boot". It means that th
>
> By adding dummy functions, wouldn't that just look awkward ?
not really; if you have a template
pm_no_suspend_needed
and
pm_no_restore_needed
functions, and just make it part of ALL device structs that don't need
it.. it's not that bad
or maybe
pm_generic_no_suspend
pm_generic_no_resum
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> What about this:
>
> "If the device requires that, implement .suspend and .resume or at least
> define .suspend that will always return -ENOSYS (then people will know they
^
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 12:26:52AM +, Alan wrote:
> > Unless I'm mistaken, I have to type the passphrase twice then :
> > - once at suspend
> > - once at resume
> >
> > which is once more per "boot" than what I'm doing on loop-aes.
>
> You don't need to type in a key at suspend time if yo
Howdy!
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 01:10 +0100, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am 11.02.2007 23:37 schrieb Nigel Cunningham:
> > On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 00:45 +0100, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> >> Am 10.02.2007 23:37 schrieb Nigel Cunningham:
> >>> If your device requires power management, and you know it r
Tilman Schmidt wrote:
If your device requires power management, and you know it requires power
management, why not just implement power management? [...]
Like it or not, power management is far from trivial, and people
writing device drivers have limited resources. [...]
It's not that complex.
On Monday, 12 February 2007 01:28, Alan wrote:
> > +PM support:Since Linux is used on many portable and desktop
> > systems, your
> > + driver is likely to be used on such a system and therefore it
> > + should support basic power management by implementing, if
> > +
Hi,
On Monday, 12 February 2007 01:10, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am 11.02.2007 23:37 schrieb Nigel Cunningham:
> > On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 00:45 +0100, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> >> Am 10.02.2007 23:37 schrieb Nigel Cunningham:
> >>> If your device requires power management, and you know it requ
> +PM support: Since Linux is used on many portable and desktop systems, your
> + driver is likely to be used on such a system and therefore it
> + should support basic power management by implementing, if
> + necessary, the .suspend and .resume methods used dur
Hi.
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 01:09 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, 12 February 2007 00:55, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 00:50 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Monday, 12 February 2007 00:47, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > > > Hi.
> > > >
> > > > On
> Unless I'm mistaken, I have to type the passphrase twice then :
> - once at suspend
> - once at resume
>
> which is once more per "boot" than what I'm doing on loop-aes.
You don't need to type in a key at suspend time if you don't want to.
Think about gpg email - I can send you an encrypted
On Monday, 12 February 2007 00:55, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 00:50 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, 12 February 2007 00:47, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > > Hi.
> > >
> > > On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 00:41 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > I'm using M$
Hi,
Am 11.02.2007 23:37 schrieb Nigel Cunningham:
> On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 00:45 +0100, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
>> Am 10.02.2007 23:37 schrieb Nigel Cunningham:
>>> If your device requires power management, and you know it requires power
>>> management, why not just implement power management? [...]
Hi.
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 00:50 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, 12 February 2007 00:47, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 00:41 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > I'm using M$ hibernation and Suspend2 to dual boot on our desktop (dtv
> > > > card that
On Monday, 12 February 2007 00:47, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 00:41 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > I'm using M$ hibernation and Suspend2 to dual boot on our desktop (dtv
> > > card that Linux doesn't support well yet), and I know other Suspend2
> > > users doing
Hi.
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 00:41 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > I'm using M$ hibernation and Suspend2 to dual boot on our desktop (dtv
> > card that Linux doesn't support well yet), and I know other Suspend2
> > users doing the same. It's made earier by the fact that Suspend2 lets
> > you rebo
Hi.
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 00:38 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 10:18:42AM +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> [snip]
> > > Hmm sorry, but we don't have the same usages of notebooks. For no reason
> > > would I keep documents open, for two reasons :
> > >
> > > - when I shutd
On Sunday, 11 February 2007 23:26, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 22:52 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 12:31:14PM -0600, Robert Hancock wrote:
> > > Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > >Nigel, don't take it as a personal offense, but I think it is a very
>
On Sunday, 11 February 2007 23:46, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 09:26:26AM +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 22:52 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 12:31:14PM -0600, Robert Hancock wrote:
> > > > Willy Tarreau wrote:
> >
Hi.
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 00:29 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 01:44 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > Well, it's probably more acceptable than silently doing nothing and the
> > > > device failing or locking up the machine on resume, but I couldn't
> > > > agree
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 10:18:42AM +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
[snip]
> > Hmm sorry, but we don't have the same usages of notebooks. For no reason
> > would I keep documents open, for two reasons :
> >
> > - when I shutdown my notebook, it is to move from one customer to
> > home/company/
Hi.
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 03:25 +0400, Manu Abraham wrote:
> On 2/12/07, Nigel Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 02:57 +0400, Manu Abraham wrote:
> > > On 2/12/07, Nigel Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Neither am I. I'm just asking that
On Sunday, 11 February 2007 23:40, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 01:44 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > Well, it's probably more acceptable than silently doing nothing and the
> > > device failing or locking up the machine on resume, but I couldn't agree
> > > more
Hi!
> >> > Neither am I. I'm just asking that new drivers have power management as
> >> > standard.
> >
> >> What if the hardware doesn't support power management ?
> >
> >You would still want to do the cleanup and configuration that you'd do
> >for module load/unload.
> >
>
> By adding dummy fun
Hi.
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 00:21 +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > > > 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 devic
On 2/12/07, Nigel Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi.
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 02:57 +0400, Manu Abraham wrote:
> On 2/12/07, Nigel Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Neither am I. I'm just asking that new drivers have power management as
> > standard.
> What if the hardware doesn't
Hi!
> > > - 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 detai
Hi.
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 00:16 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, 12 February 2007 00:10, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 21:02 +, Alan wrote:
> > > > > "If the device requires that, implement .suspend and .resume or at
> > > > > least
> > > > > defin
Hi!
> > > > 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
> > > > wil
On Monday, 12 February 2007 00:10, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 21:02 +, 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
> > > >
Hi.
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 02:57 +0400, Manu Abraham wrote:
> On 2/12/07, Nigel Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Neither am I. I'm just asking that new drivers have power management as
> > standard.
> What if the hardware doesn't support power management ?
You would still want to do t
Hi.
On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 23:46 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 22:52 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 12:31:14PM -0600, Robert Hancock wrote:
> > > > Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > > >Nigel, don't take it as a personal offense, but I think it is a very
>
On Monday, 12 February 2007 00:06, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 19:53 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > Having drivers explicitly marked as to whether they are safe is a good
> > > kernel
> > > feature; what to do if they're not is policy.
> >
> > That's true, but
Hi.
On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 21:02 +, 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
> Hmm sorry, but we don't have the same usages of notebooks. For no reason
> would I keep documents open, for two reasons :
>
> - when I shutdown my notebook, it is to move from one customer to
> home/company/another customer. There's no related work anyway, the
> network will have chang
On Sunday, 11 February 2007 22:02, 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
> >
Hi.
On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 19:53 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > Having drivers explicitly marked as to whether they are safe is a good
> > kernel
> > feature; what to do if they're not is policy.
>
> That's true, but I assume that the people who opt for doing that are also
> willing to take
On 2/12/07, Nigel Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Neither am I. I'm just asking that new drivers have power management as
standard.
What if the hardware doesn't support power management ?
regards,
manu
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the bod
Hi.
On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 12:13 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 07:54:04AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>
> > instead of modifying all drivers to explicitly state that they don't support
> > it, we should start with a test of the NULL pointer for .suspend which
> > should
Hi.
On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 07:46 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Hi Nigel,
>
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 09:37:06AM +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > On Sat, 2007-02-10 at 23:20 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> (...)
> > > What about this:
> > >
> > > "If the device requires that, implement .suspen
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 09:26:26AM +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 22:52 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 12:31:14PM -0600, Robert Hancock wrote:
> > > Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > >Nigel, don't take it as a personal offense, but I think it is a
On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 01:27 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Sunday, 11 February 2007 00:45, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> > Am 10.02.2007 23:37 schrieb Nigel Cunningham:
> > > If your device requires power management, and you know it requires power
> > > management, why not just implement power mana
Hi.
On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 01:44 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > Well, it's probably more acceptable than silently doing nothing and the
> > device failing or locking up the machine on resume, but I couldn't agree
> > more that it's not what we want to be encouraging. Perfect may be the
> >
Hi.
On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 00:45 +0100, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> Am 10.02.2007 23:37 schrieb Nigel Cunningham:
> > If your device requires power management, and you know it requires power
> > management, why not just implement power management? Doing -ENOSYS
> > instead is like saying -ESPAMMEBECAUS
Hi.
On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 22:52 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 12:31:14PM -0600, Robert Hancock wrote:
> > Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > >Nigel, don't take it as a personal offense, but I think it is a very
> > >centric view of Linux usages. Where I work, Linux is used a lot on
>
Am 11.02.2007 20:42 schrieb Pavel Machek:
[...]
>> What about this:
>>
>> "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
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 12:31:14PM -0600, Robert Hancock wrote:
> Willy Tarreau wrote:
> >Nigel, don't take it as a personal offense, but I think it is a very
> >centric view of Linux usages. Where I work, Linux is used a lot on
> >servers and appliances. It is used for mail relays, HTTP proxies,
>
Hi!
> > > instead of modifying all drivers to explicitly state that they don't
> > > support
> > > it, we should start with a test of the NULL pointer for .suspend which
> > > should
> > > mean exactly the same without modifying the drivers. I find it obvious
> > > that
> > > a driver which doe
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> - Problem what to do with drivers that work for some people and don't work
> for the others (ie. if we don't flag them as known good, we will break the
> setups in which they work)
And this issue is independent of whether a driver has .suspend and
.resume or not. For exa
> > "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 .re
Hi!
> > > > Can we start to NAK new drivers that don't have proper power management
> > > > implemented? There really is no excuse for writing a new driver and not
> > > > putting .suspend and .resume methods in anymore, is there?
> > >
> > > to a large degree, a device driver that doesn't suspen
Hi!
> > Also, I think there are quite some drivers already in the tree that don't
> > support suspend/resume explicitly and honestly we should start from adding
> > the
> > suspend/resume routines to these drivers _before_ we ban new drivers like
> > that.
>
> It'd be relatively quick to modify
On Sunday, 11 February 2007 16:19, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On 2/11/07, Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Unfortunately it has to be done in one shot for all of the known good
> > drivers to avoid
> > user-observable regressions.
>
> No you don't. You can make it a config option that
On Sunday, 11 February 2007 18:27, Daniel Barkalow wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > The problem is it was made implicit long ago. The design is "optimistic",
> > so
> > to speak, and I think we have the following choices:
> >
> > 1) Change the design to make the kern
Willy Tarreau wrote:
Nigel, don't take it as a personal offense, but I think it is a very
centric view of Linux usages. Where I work, Linux is used a lot on
servers and appliances. It is used for mail relays, HTTP proxies,
anti-viruses, firewalls, routers, load balancers, UTM, SSH relays,
etc...
Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 07:54:04AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
instead of modifying all drivers to explicitly state that they don't support
it, we should start with a test of the NULL pointer for .suspend which should
mean exactly the same without modifying the drivers. I
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> The problem is it was made implicit long ago. The design is "optimistic", so
> to speak, and I think we have the following choices:
>
> 1) Change the design to make the kernel refuse to suspend if there are any
> drivers not explicitly flagged as "
Hi!
> > > -ENOSYS is just not acceptable.
> >
> > Well, it's probably more acceptable than silently doing nothing and the
> > device failing or locking up the machine on resume, but I couldn't agree
> > more that it's not what we want to be encouraging. Perfect may be the
> > enemy of the good
On 2/11/07, Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Unfortunately it has to be done in one shot for all of the known good drivers
to avoid
user-observable regressions.
No you don't. You can make it a config option that defaults to n
during a transition period.
-
To unsubscribe from this l
On Sunday, 11 February 2007 14:57, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 02:50:48PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Sunday, 11 February 2007 14:37, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 01:19:57PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 02:09:43PM
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 02:50:48PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Sunday, 11 February 2007 14:37, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 01:19:57PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 02:09:43PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > >
> > > > Then change the PCI l
On Sunday, 11 February 2007 14:37, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 01:19:57PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 02:09:43PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> >
> > > Then change the PCI layer to do the basic PM only for known compatible
> > > drivers, and modify o
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 01:19:57PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 02:09:43PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>
> > Then change the PCI layer to do the basic PM only for known compatible
> > drivers, and modify only the known-compatible drivers to mark them
> > explicitly compa
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 02:09:43PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Then change the PCI layer to do the basic PM only for known compatible
> drivers, and modify only the known-compatible drivers to mark them
> explicitly compatible. IMHO, it generally is a bad idea to require that
> any driver explic
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 12:13:40PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 07:54:04AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>
> > instead of modifying all drivers to explicitly state that they don't support
> > it, we should start with a test of the NULL pointer for .suspend which
> > shoul
On Sunday, 11 February 2007 07:46, Willy Tarreau wrote:
[--snip--]
> What I really think would be a clean solution would be sort of
> a capability. Either the driver *is* suspend/resume-capable, and
> the system can be suspended. Or it is not, and the system must
> refuse to suspend. It should not
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 07:54:04AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> instead of modifying all drivers to explicitly state that they don't support
> it, we should start with a test of the NULL pointer for .suspend which should
> mean exactly the same without modifying the drivers. I find it obvious tha
On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 08:50:27PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday, 10 February 2007 18:52, Daniel Barkalow wrote:
> > On Sat, 10 Feb 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > > On Saturday, 10 February 2007 11:02, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > >
> > > > Well, the original desire was to s
Hi Nigel,
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 09:37:06AM +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-02-10 at 23:20 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
(...)
> > What about this:
> >
> > "If the device requires that, implement .suspend and .resume or at least
> > define .suspend that will always return -ENOSYS
On Sunday, 11 February 2007 00:20, Robert Hancock wrote:
> Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > If your device requires power management, and you know it requires power
> > management, why not just implement power management? Doing -ENOSYS
> > instead is like saying -ESPAMMEBECAUSEIMLAZY.
> >
> > Let me pu
On Sunday, 11 February 2007 00:45, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> Am 10.02.2007 23:37 schrieb Nigel Cunningham:
> > If your device requires power management, and you know it requires power
> > management, why not just implement power management? Doing -ENOSYS
> > instead is like saying -ESPAMMEBECAUSEIMLA
1 - 100 of 136 matches
Mail list logo
