From owner-freebsd-current Tue Jan 25 4: 0:31 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from tasogare.imasy.or.jp (tasogare.imasy.or.jp [202.227.24.5]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36E10155CE for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 04:00:16 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from iwasaki@jp.FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost (isdn9.imasy.or.jp [202.227.24.201]) by tasogare.imasy.or.jp (8.9.3+3.2W/3.7W-tasogare/smtpfeed 1.01) with ESMTP id VAA24572; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 21:00:09 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from iwasaki@jp.FreeBSD.org) Message-Id: <200001251200.VAA24572@tasogare.imasy.or.jp> To: dfr@nlsystems.com Cc: imp@village.org, n_hibma@webweaving.org, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: APM still ignoring DEVICE_SUSPEND errors In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 25 Jan 2000 09:17:05 +0000 (GMT)" References: X-Mailer: Mew version 1.93 on Emacs 19.34 / Mule 2.3 (SUETSUMUHANA) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 21:00:07 +0900 From: Mitsuru IWASAKI X-Dispatcher: imput version 980905(IM100) Lines: 34 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > On Mon, 24 Jan 2000, Warner Losh wrote: > > > In message 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. No, it just reloads the countdown register of i8254 in apm_default_resume() for now. But once the PIT become an ordinary device like any other, this is planned to be the device's resume method. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message