On Fri, 3 Aug 2007, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 06:15:05PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > > Well, if you do this, then you can pretty much delete the whole quirk > > table we have, right? > > At the moment, yes. > > > And personally, I want to do better than Windows XP when it comes to > > power management. This patch is only going to suspend a very tiny > > subset of devices, including a whole bunch of ones that do not even have > > drivers in Linux, causing our power footprint to be bigger than needed. > > I agree. I'd much rather see us suspending devices whenever possible - > it's just that I have concerns over the scalability of the blacklist, > given the number of devices that seem to have issues.
While I agree in general, perhaps a different approach would work better. For instance, we could blacklist a few known-bad device classes (maybe even using the existing blacklist) rather than whitelisting a few known-good ones -- or trying to blacklist each member of the bad classes! Also, building something this sweeping into a kernel driver feels like a mistake. It ought to be more easily configurable from userspace, say via a sysfs file. Although this wouldn't be so important if we take the blacklist-classes route. Alan Stern - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
