[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100520111111.333beb73@schatten.dmk.lab>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 11:11:11 +0200
From: Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] PM: Add suspend block api.
On Tue, 18 May 2010 15:11:11 +0200
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz> wrote:
> On Thu 2010-05-13 21:11:06, Arve Hj??nnev??g wrote:
> > Adds /sys/power/policy that selects the behaviour of /sys/power/state.
> > After setting the policy to opportunistic, writes to /sys/power/state
> > become non-blocking requests that specify which suspend state to
> > enter
>
> Yeah, one file selects behavior of another file, and to read available
> states for opportunistic, you have to write to file first.
>
> I still don't like the interface.
>
Actually, what would be a better interface?
I wonder why it is not like this:
/sys/power/state
no change, works with and without opportunistic suspend the
same. Ignores suspend blockers. Really no change. (From user
perspective)
/sys/power/opportunistic
On / Off
While Off the opportunistic suspend is off.
While On, the opportunistic suspend is on and if there are no
suspend blockers the system goes to suspend.
Cheers,
Flo
--
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