Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 09:17:05 +0000 (GMT) From: Doug Rabson <dfr@nlsystems.com> To: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> Cc: Nick Hibma <n_hibma@webweaving.org>, FreeBSD CURRENT Mailing List <current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: APM still ignoring DEVICE_SUSPEND errors Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.10001250916120.25770-100000@salmon.nlsystems.com> In-Reply-To: <200001241836.LAA04877@harmony.village.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Mon, 24 Jan 2000, Warner Losh wrote:
> In message <Pine.BSF.4.20.0001231408180.4623-200000@localhost> Nick Hibma writes:
> : The following patch fixes two things: First, DEVICE_SUSPEND errors are
> : no longer ignored. Since we have defaults for methods we should no
> : longer ignore these errors. Also, DEVICE_RESUME wasn't done when the
> : apm_suspend_system event failed.
>
> I had similar patches that workede several months ago, but they have
> since been lost.
>
> : Second, in the ordering of DEVICE_* and apm_hook_* is not symmetric for
> : suspend and resume. The patch reverses the resume case as well to be
> :
> : apm_hook_resume(...)
> : DEVICE_RESUME(root)
> :
> : Send me some feedback on this. I've mailed the people mentioned in the
> : head of the file, but so far got no response. I would like to make sure
> : we get this right when USB devices are used. Some of them don't suspend
> : and the suspend should be refused in that case.
>
> Any reason to not shoot the apm_hook_{suspend,resume} in the head and
> just use newbus suspend/resume everywhere?
Are there any non-newbus devices which need suspend/resume? I think the
i386 clock uses the apm hooks but I might be misremembering.
--
Doug Rabson Mail: dfr@nlsystems.com
Nonlinear Systems Ltd. Phone: +44 181 442 9037
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.10.10001250916120.25770-100000>