Re: Suspend2 merge: 1/51: Device trees

[Pavel Machek]

Hi!

> > > I'd agree, except that I don't know how many to allocate. It makes
> > > getting a reliable suspend the result of guess work and favourable
> > > circumstances. Fixing 'broken' drivers by really suspending them seems
> > > to me to be the right solution. Make their memory requirements perfectly
> > > predictable.
> > 
> > Except for the few drivers that are between suspend device and
> > root. So you still have the same problem, and still need to
> > guess. Plus you get complex changes to driver model.
> 
> I think you're overstating your case. All we're talking about doing is
> quiescing the same drivers that would be quiesced later, in the same
> way, but earlier in the process. Apart from the code I already have in
> that patch, nothing else is needed. The changes aren't that complex,
> either.

Driver model now needs to know how to handle tree where some parts are
suspended and some are not, and I think that's quite a big change.

								Pavel
-- 
People were complaining that M$ turns users into beta-testers...
...jr ghea gurz vagb qrirybcref, naq gurl frrz gb yvxr vg gung jnl!
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/