Re: CVS commit: src/sys/dev/pci

[Izumi Tsutsui <tsutsui%ceres.dti.ne.jp@localhost>]

> > > > Let the programmer of drivers add a bus-dependent PMF hook in the bus
> > > > attachment routine, and a bus-independent PMF hook in the generic attach
> > > > routine.  Something like this, for example,
> > > 
> > > How much duplication between the bus-dependent frontend really exists?
> > > Other than PCI/Cardbus which are essentially the same...
> > 
> > Most shutdown hooks and pmf_class_foo_register()?
> 
> You can't move the class registering into device_t as e.g. the network
> class has to know the ifp. The shutdown hook can be directly shared
> between frontend already if all do the same thing. If all your frontends
> directly call the backend, you can also push the register calls down.

Well, my first question is:
>> XXX: should these pmf(9) calls be moved into MI attach functions
>> XXX: using function pointers for suspend and resume passed via softc?

ex(4) does it in the MI attachment for a shutdown hook (no suspend/resume).
fxp(4) does it in each backend for resume handlers (no shutdown hook).

Currently many drivers don't have suspend/resume handlers
but shutdown hooks, so I just wonder *which* is better.

BTW, most shutdown hooks for NICs just call foo_stop().
I wonder if it's redundant because it will also be handled
by pmf_class_network_register()?

> I still don't see what splitting between bus-dependent and
> bus-indepedent for the suspend/resume (and shutdown) hooks really buys.

The splitting is suggested by dyoung@, and
I don't have a particular comment about it.
---
Izumi Tsutsui