hughsient at gmail.com
Fri Oct 6 10:45:04 PDT 2006
On Fri, 2006-10-06 at 16:00 +0200, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
> This is pretty much what i had in mind. "Use HAL as the whitelist
> but let the pm-utils decide what to do with this information".
> No, having the whitelist compiled into s2ram is not my favorite
> solution :-)
> But with this, pm-utils can just call s2ram with the apropriate flags,
> the built-in whitelist gets overridden, or they can do everything by
> themselves using vbetool, radeontool, etc.pp.
So, at the moment we have a best-of-breed approach:
* program invokes Suspend() on HAL
* HAL invokes hal-system-power-suspend
* hal-system-power-suspend (using the quirks assigned using
video_adapter_pm) executes pm-suspend with flags (e.g. --s3mode)
* pm-suspend runs all the hacky scripts (e.g. to set LED's, rmmod
modules and sync drives etc.) and then runs s2ram.
* s2ram actually does the suspend (using whatever method) and resumes
* pm-suspend does all the hacky resume stuff (modprobe'ing, setting
* the Suspend() method on HAL returns.
Is this sane? It seems very complicated. This means that console users
of pm-suspend will also not get the video resumed like they do at the
More information about the hal