Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 09:47:55 -0600 (MDT) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: jhb@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: marks@ripe.net, mobile@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: pccard re-attach after ACPI S1 resume Message-ID: <20020913.094755.08630187.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.20020912171224.jhb@FreeBSD.org> References: <20020912205654.GB1602@laptop.6bone.nl> <XFMail.20020912171224.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <XFMail.20020912171224.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.ORG> writes:
:
: On 12-Sep-2002 Mark Santcroos wrote:
: > On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 04:53:15PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
: >> > Then we do an attach on a slot where we know there isn't anything anyway.
: >> > That basicly doesn't make sense, and it also spits out all kind of ulgy
: >> > messages that we don't want/need.
: >>
: >> We do a detach when we don't know if something is there in pccard_suspend().
: >> :) Maybe pccard_attach_card() could take an argument to tell it to not
: >> whine if there is no card there.
: >
: > That's true :) Whatever you think is best. As long as I don't have to
: > reboot. I'm coming pretty close to a fully usable laptop now!
: >
: > Anyway, is this the right place you think or should we kick it up to pccbb?
:
: Well, Warner is Mr. Newcard, so it is really his opinion that matters. :)
: Logically since we always do a detach() in suspend() I think we should
: always do an attach() on resume() but just silently fail if there is no
: card. Imagine if you suspended with a card in and then ejected it. You
: would still get a bunch of warning message from attach() when instead it
: should just handle the situation quietly. :)
This is basically right. Having special flags on suspend is bogus.
Warner
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-mobile" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020913.094755.08630187.imp>