From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932856AbXBKN52 (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Feb 2007 08:57:28 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932858AbXBKN52 (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Feb 2007 08:57:28 -0500 Received: from 1wt.eu ([62.212.114.60]:2356 "EHLO 1wt.eu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932856AbXBKN51 (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Feb 2007 08:57:27 -0500 Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 14:57:08 +0100 From: Willy Tarreau To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Matthew Garrett , Daniel Barkalow , nigel@nigel.suspend2.net, Robert Hancock , linux-kernel , Jeff Garzik , Pavel Machek , pm list Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: NAK new drivers without proper power management? Message-ID: <20070211135708.GC1868@1wt.eu> References: <20070211131957.GA6039@srcf.ucam.org> <20070211133710.GB1868@1wt.eu> <200702111450.49736.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200702111450.49736.rjw@sisk.pl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 +0000, 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 compatible. IMHO, it generally is a bad idea to require that > > > > any driver explicitly states what it *does not* support. It's the reason > > > > why users encounter problem on new features with old drivers. For instance, > > > > do you know if the old ISA NE2000 driver breaks suspend ? I don't know, > > > > but I would at least expect it not to support it by default. It's best > > > > to announce what *is* supported and consider everything unimplemented > > > > otherwise explicitly stated. > > > > > > This ignores the reality of the situation, which is that many drivers > > > support suspend and resume despite the lack of any explicit > > > implementation. Changing things so they're flagged as broken when > > > they're not would be a regression. > > > > Those which are identified as OK should be flagged OK. Only those for > > which we have no idea should be flagged broken. > > I think we don't need to flag the drivers identified as OK. Let's flag only > the suspicious ones. > > Whatever we finally come up with, I'd like to avoid modifying drivers that are > known good. I understand your concerns, but the problem is not *current* drivers, but what will happen to *new* drivers. If we make it implicit that a driver is compatible, then new drivers will be promoted as good even if nothing has been done for this. Regards, Willy From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Willy Tarreau Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: NAK new drivers without proper power management? Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 14:57:08 +0100 Message-ID: <20070211135708.GC1868@1wt.eu> References: <20070211131957.GA6039@srcf.ucam.org> <20070211133710.GB1868@1wt.eu> <200702111450.49736.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200702111450.49736.rjw@sisk.pl> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.osdl.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.osdl.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Robert Hancock , Matthew Garrett , Pavel Machek , Jeff Garzik , Daniel Barkalow , pm list , linux-kernel List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org 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 +0000, 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 compati= ble > > > > 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 explicitly states what it *does not* support. It's the r= eason > > > > why users encounter problem on new features with old drivers. For i= nstance, > > > > do you know if the old ISA NE2000 driver breaks suspend ? I don't k= now, > > > > but I would at least expect it not to support it by default. It's b= est > > > > to announce what *is* supported and consider everything unimplement= ed > > > > otherwise explicitly stated. > > > = > > > This ignores the reality of the situation, which is that many drivers = > > > support suspend and resume despite the lack of any explicit = > > > implementation. Changing things so they're flagged as broken when = > > > they're not would be a regression. > > = > > Those which are identified as OK should be flagged OK. Only those for > > which we have no idea should be flagged broken. > = > I think we don't need to flag the drivers identified as OK. Let's flag o= nly > the suspicious ones. > = > Whatever we finally come up with, I'd like to avoid modifying drivers tha= t are > known good. I understand your concerns, but the problem is not *current* drivers, but what will happen to *new* drivers. If we make it implicit that a driver is compatible, then new drivers will be promoted as good even if nothing has been done for this. Regards, Willy