On Fri, 14 Feb 2003, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
> > OK, but then the question is: are the following calls:
> >
> > + driver_register(&local_apic_driver);
> > + return sys_device_register(&device_local_apic);
> >
> > for suspend/resume exclusively?
>
> Yes.
OK, then.
> We could register the device also in other cases (!PM, SMP)
> but the methods would then be nullified and we'd have a device
> node with a name but no operations. I could do that, I just
> think it's pointless.
Agreed if the interface is not going to be extended further, i.e. the
intent is to cover PM-capable devices only.
I'd prefer the discrete APIC support not to get broken accidentally as
such systems are rare thus testing is limited.
-- + Maciej W. Rozycki, Technical University of Gdansk, Poland + +--------------------------------------------------------------+ + e-mail: macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl, PGP key available +- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 15 2003 - 22:00:53 EST