[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090220234548.GA9297@srcf.ucam.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 23:45:48 +0000
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc: Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>,
Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
"Woodruff, Richard" <r-woodruff2@...com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Kyle Moffett <kyle@...fetthome.net>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Nigel Cunningham <nigel@...el.suspend2.net>,
mark gross <mgross@...ux.intel.com>,
Uli Luckas <u.luckas@...d.de>,
Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...ia.com>,
Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.com>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFD] Automatic suspend
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 12:40:48AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> We can't do the quirks from the kernel and that's one of the reasons why I
> think user space should start automatic suspend (it can do the quirks if
> necessary).
Any sort of automatic suspend is simply impossible in a world where your
drivers don't work properly. There's code for making intel and radeon
handle suspend/resume themselves now, and nvidia before g80 should also
be easy. More recent nvidia is going to be some work.
But yeah. Let's not have "Work around broken drivers" as a design goal.
The argument against timeouts in wakelocks works just as well here.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.org
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists