From owner-freebsd-mobile Fri Sep 13 8:50:52 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-mobile@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C13A037B407; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 08:50:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harmony.village.org (rover.bsdimp.com [204.144.255.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1296243E7B; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 08:48:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from localhost (warner@rover2.village.org [10.0.0.1]) by harmony.village.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g8DFm29R035248; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 09:48:02 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 09:47:55 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <20020913.094755.08630187.imp@bsdimp.com> To: jhb@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: marks@ripe.net, mobile@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: pccard re-attach after ACPI S1 resume From: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: References: <20020912205654.GB1602@laptop.6bone.nl> X-Mailer: Mew version 2.1 on Emacs 21.2 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-mobile@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org In message: John Baldwin 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