Op Wed, 10 Sep 2008 17:12:48 -0500 schreef Victor Lowther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 22:10 +0200, Danny Kukawka wrote: > > On Dienstag, 9. September 2008, Victor Lowther wrote: > > > On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 11:24 +0200, Tim Dijkstra wrote: > > > > Victor Lowther schreef: > > That's not really a reason to drop s2ram support. There are good > > reasons, without starting any old discussion again, to use s2ram > > instead of 99video. > > Well, I never found any of those reasons convincing -- s2ram has its > internal whitelist and it is a single executable, but those are not > compelling reasons to me. If there is something beyond those, I am > willing to be enlightened. It is also rumored to be more stable. Because it will freeze all processes except the one that does all the quirk handling. > > If you don't have s2ram (which you obviously do), you have no > > trouble. And for the rest, which want to use s2ram, they should > > report it to the s2ram maintainers. But this isn't your problem at > > all. You make it only complicated for all these users. They have to > > revert your patch .... > > My main issue is maintenance related -- pm-utils has to force s2ram to > do what 99video would do as well in order to handle the quirks that > HAL asks us to. We could also just drop 99video and just use s2ram that would be much easier in maintaining. ;) > From a maintenance standpoint, that buys me nothing > but maintaining two different mechanisms to handle quirks where one > would do the job. If it cost nothing to maintain compatibility with > s2ram (say, by making it take the same commandline parameters that > hal passes and having it on a release schedule), it might be another > matter, but right now the easiest way for me to deal with s2ram is to > treat it as nothing but another mechanism to echo mem > > /sys/power/state, and we already handle that part normally. There are enough people who want to maintain the uswsusp part in pm-utils, they will have to do it anyway for their respective distributions. So if you add all the work that all pm-utils maintainers have to do, their is no maintenance benefit to remove uswsusp support. So I urge you to not apply your patch. > > > s2disk and s2both are still supported by this patch series, and > > > now we force s2both to run quirkless. I could have s2ram do the > > > same thing, but since all it ends up doing the same as what we > > > already do, it is just as easy to fall back to the kernel method. s2both needs the quirks too. > > That all is easy to say if you don't use s2ram. And not everyone is > > doing what you do. > > Right. And once pci_state and no_fb support is merged, there will be > no functional difference between 99video and s2ram, except that s2ram > has an internal whitelist that pm-utils ignores by design in favor of > the quirks that HAL gives us. Until s2ram adds another quirk, which has to be added to hal and pmutils... grts Tim _______________________________________________ Pm-utils mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-utils
