Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 09:04:51 -0700 From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> To: Mitsuru IWASAKI <iwasaki@jp.FreeBSD.org> Cc: dfr@nlsystems.com, n_hibma@webweaving.org, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: APM still ignoring DEVICE_SUSPEND errors Message-ID: <200001251604.JAA03962@harmony.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 25 Jan 2000 21:00:07 %2B0900." <200001251200.VAA24572@tasogare.imasy.or.jp> References: <200001251200.VAA24572@tasogare.imasy.or.jp> <Pine.BSF.4.10.10001250916120.25770-100000@salmon.nlsystems.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <200001251200.VAA24572@tasogare.imasy.or.jp> Mitsuru IWASAKI writes:
: > > 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.
Sounds like a good reason to me (eg, there are still non-newbus driver
users of this) to keep it.
Warner
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200001251604.JAA03962>