[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090723145757.GB28158@elf.ucw.cz>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 16:57:57 +0200
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>
Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...il.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>,
Jouni Malinen <j@...fi>,
linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
Stephen Chen <Stephen.Chen@...eros.com>
Subject: Re: Generic events for wake up from S1-S4
On Sat 2009-07-18 20:56:10, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Jul 2009, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > Hm yeah, but I doubt someone will do that, generally we'd get one wake
> > up event. Can't we just report the first one and ignore the rest?
>
> Well, I'd say keeping it simple is best, here. What if you ignore the more
> interesting wakeup events by chance (and it is really up to userspace to
> know what it considers interesting...)? IMHO, just issue as many
> notifications as needed, let userspace filter it if it wants.
>
> But if you guys are talking about something really generic, shouldn't it
> also provide the important "why" along with the "who"?
>
> Even for the most common cases, the "why" is useful: userspace may well want
> to run special routines when it wakes up because of WoL and WoW (instead of
> a key press, lid open or mouse movement...).
What special routines?
Note that the "why" is unreliable by design. Network driver will
ignore WoL during run-time, right?
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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