On Fri, 8 Jun 2007 14:51:52 +0200 Tim Dijkstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 11:19:19 +0100 > Richard Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 12:17 +0200, Stefan Seyfried wrote: > > > Good, so we can use that. Does it get passed down to pm-utils or do i > > > need to jump through hoops to get it? > > > > Good question. I don't think it get passed down - I'm crazy busy today - > > could someone do a HAL patch for this please - thanks. > > OK, this will set --quirk-none to the exported quirks in case of a > machine confirmed to be working without quirks. Please apply. OK, now we have this. We have to think how we want to use it. s2ram always refused to suspend if a machine wasn't in the white list. Now we have --quirks-none we can do the same in pm-utils. We can maybe teach hal to notice this and tell g-p-m that suspending didn't succeed. g-p-m could then tell the user to go and find out what quirks are needed. Do we agree about that? grts Tim
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Pm-utils mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-utils
