Ghee, Ghee Teo wrote: > Hi Simon, > > Is there a run-time whether the machine is capable of Suspend to RAM? Yes. Interfaces "AD_CHECK_SUSPEND_TO_RAM" and "AD_CHECK_SUSPEND_TO_RAM" support this.
> If it has, do it not make more sense to create just another button on > the GUI says > "Suspend to RAM" alone side Suspend and let Suspend to RAM be the default > option? > > Run-time check is better than compilation test. You patch will have to > be re-worked > when suspend to ram come to work on Sparc, but a run-time check means > you don't > have to recompile and rework the patch. Agree. The best design is to have 5 buttons "Suspend", "Hibernate", "Shutdown", "Reboot" and "Cancel" on dialog. And run-time checking decides which one is showed and which one is hidden. I think this should be left to a totally new gnome-sys-suspend. For this short-term patch, early I just didn't want to change GUI, and let "suspend on X86" and "hibernate on sparc" share one button. I suppose adding a new button might be import some other work, like A11Y, L10N. Anyway, if module owner Brian also prefers to "new button", I would like rework this patch. Thanks, -Simon > > > -Ghee > > > simon.zheng at sun.com wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Please review the patch for bug. >> http://monaco.sfbay.sun.com/detail.jsf?cr=6656956 - gnome-sys-suspend >> doesn't work on Ultra 20 >> >> Suspending to RAM on X86 is introduced already. But gnome-sys-suspend >> doesn't support it. This patch will support new system call >> interfaces "AD_SUSPEND_TO_RAM" and "AD_CHECK_SUSPEND_TO_RAM" on X86. >> I guess we possibly release a new tarball for this. >> >> Thanks, >> -Simon >
