Improving the suspend quirks guessworking
danny.kukawka at web.de
Mon Mar 24 17:16:57 PDT 2008
On Samstag, 22. März 2008, Martin Pitt wrote:
> > This combination looks strange to me, but maybe Stefan can comment, he
> > works on suspend since ages.
> I'm more or less just the messenger. According to Matthew (CC'ed
> again, please keep him in CC) those are necessary to work around
> kernel bugs which affect drivers other than fglrx, nvidia, and never
If you take a look at already existing quirks, I wouldn't say this is a common
combination to fix things generally or often.
> > > (1) laptop model has no matching FDI rule -> use the default quirks
> > > in the attached patch
> > IMO not a good idea. I would still prefer that the people which have
> > problems with suspending go the current workflow: test the needed quirks,
> > report them back, we add them to hal-info.
> Me too, but I understand it as being a much better default than "no
> quirks at all" if there is no FDI data for a particular model.
The 'no quirks at all' force the people to report the needed quirks back to us
to add them to hal-info. Without this policy we never get them reported and
if these affected machines don't need these strange default keys anymore the
suspend get broken again.
> > What you propose would cause also many trouble e.g. on machines
> > which are not listed and don't need any quirks (only as one
> > example).
> I understand that, but I can only parrot Matthew here: "no quirks" is
> allegedly guaranteed to fail on those machines, whereas the above set
> of quirks at least gives a good chance of succeeding.
> > 2) until these modules don't export (device) information (not that
> > may a module with this name was loaded) to the sysfs we can't detect
> > that in HAL.
> Oh the joy of proprietary X.org device drivers. But since the best we
> can do is to prod AMD/NVidia to fix it,
Not sure if this is possible at all, because of GPL violations.
More information about the hal