On Mon, 17 Dec 2007, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 02:19:55PM -0600, David Young wrote:
>> device_is_active() never used to work the way that it works, now, and
>> it is definitely concerned with device PMF states, now, in ways that
>> I had to discover by experimenting.  I think that device_is_active()
>> deserves to be documented in pmf(9).  Ditto device_has_power().
>
> device_is_active is a function of the device state, just like
> device_xname etc. It did exist before and the old behaviour wasn't
> documented either.

In the time it took you to write this email, you could have already 
updated the documentation. :-)

Jared