On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 23:11 +0100, Tim Dijkstra wrote: > Op Sun, 16 Mar 2008 21:37:28 -0500 > schreef Victor Lowther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > Actually, I think the QUIRKS_NONE option has a slightly different > > > meaning: If no quirks are passed to pm-suspend, pm-suspend does not > > > know if that is a) because the machine doesn't require quirks > > > b) because the machine hasn't been tested yet. > > > > huh? In the case where hal is invoking pm-utils, I would think that > > it would simply not invoke pm-utils at all if the machine is not in > > the database. > > I'm not following the discussion at all, but I accidentally read these > sentences and I had something to add. > > --quirk-none was added on my instigation (maybe I added it myself now > I come to think of it) specifically to be able to distinguish ``I don't > know this machine'' from ``I DO know this machine, it needs no(ne) > quirks''. And --quirk-none would than be the latter. I needed this > distinction to be able to tell s3ram to not do any quirks, or to > try to use the internal whitelist in the case it was unknown to hal.
Thanks for the clarification, Tim. At this point, I do not have a problem reverting --quirk-none to mean that -- the quirk-mangling machinery i have added for debugging is powerful enough to take care of the case I was using it for, and the folks on the hal list seem to be having a nice, healthy argument that may lead to quirks getting much more reliable. > grts Tim > -- Victor Lowther Ubuntu Certified Professional _______________________________________________ Pm-utils mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-utils
