Re: [linux-pm] Re: Concerns about our pci_{save,restore}_state()

[Patrick Mochel]

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:

> On Mon, 2004-10-25 at 02:11 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:

> > This is _clearly_ something that should be decided upon in the driver.
> > The PCI layer should _only_ present standard helper functions, and maybe
> > a standard storage space that works for most drivers; not force all
> > drivers through a narrow funnel.
>
> Agreed. However, my concern is to have some "default" stuff that will
> take over in absence of a driver. This is, I think, important for things
> like P2P bridges which are rather standard and will usually survive well
> with a simple save/retore of whatever is there. I suppose it would be
> interesting to define a pair of quirk types to hook on the "default"
> implementation, unless we actually want to have a bunch of pci_driver's
> just for things that don't have normally a driver but need some specific
> save/restore procedure ...

What's wrong with that? They would be simple and straightforward, and
could probably work to remove many of the quirks, too..


	Pat

-
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/