Re: [PATCH 1/3] PM: Introduce new top level suspend andhibernation callbacks (rev. 8)

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt]

On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 08:43 +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> 
> Which is the problem. Suspension is supposed to be transparent.
> We cannot start returning error codes for operations which never
> failed in practice (eg. switching configurations in USB), just because
> the system is about to be suspended.

Returning errors is better than crashing in any way. So what I meant
here is that the problem is not as bad as it sounds.

> If you want to request firmware in a PM callback, which makes a
> certain
> sense, as we should move to a comprehensive API, if we change the API
> at all, we need a model with 3 callbacks.

No. At this pace, we'll find reasons to have 98213674 callbacks and will
still not be happy.

Prepare() should be the right place to call request_firmware() and if
that is a problem because of bugs in some USB things, then those bugs
should be fixed.

Ben.


--
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/