[Pm-utils] [PATCH] parse video quirks in uswsusp sleep module
victor.lowther at gmail.com
Sun Mar 16 20:45:06 PDT 2008
On Mon, 2008-03-17 at 04:26 +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
> 2008/3/17, Victor Lowther <victor.lowther at gmail.com>:
> > Intel 945 GMA
> > nVidia GeForce 7400 Go
> > That gives us a few different drivers options:
> > Intel video driver
> > nv open-source video driver
> > nvidia binary driver
> Honestly, I don't really care for proprietary drivers, but I
> understand your needs.
As long as there is an understanding that they are not just my needs. I
am not the only person who must run using proprietary drivers on my
hardware, and that we cannot ignore them.
> > The whitelist from s2ram specifies that the D820 requires the vbe_post
> > quirk and the vbe_mode quirk. The HAL quirks list specifies just the
> > vbe_mode hack.
> > I run the nvidia binary drivers, and if I allow either of those quirks
> > to happen the system will hardlock.
> > On those rare occasions when I have used the nv open-source drivers it
> > has not survived a suspend/resume either. I have no particular desire
> > to further troubleshoot this particular scenario -- the nv drivers are
> > unsuitable for my system (they cannot driver my flatpanel at 1920x1200
> > without video corruption).
> > I don't have access to a D820 with the Intel graphics drivers, but I
> > suspect the quirks in the s2ram whitelist are written to cover that
> > particular hardware combination.
> > This would not be such a big deal if it was easy to tell s2ram or the
> > HAL quirks list what to do on X system with Y video hardware and Z video
> > driver -- I would patch my local copy of the HAL quirks list and submit
> > a new quirks entry covering that combination. Problem is, the HAL
> > quirks list only appear to look at system mfgr/make/model -- I have not
> > been able to find an exmaple of anything more complicated, and the docs
> > on the fd.o HAL quirks list are lacking on how to write a new quirk that
> > can express all the conditions I need to express.
> Richard can probably give you more insight on this.
> > Asking an end-user to write their own quirk entry
> > in /usr/share/hal/fdi/information would be a great way to drive people
> > away from Linux.
> Imho it's much worse to provide several different ways to do the same thing.
> I don't think it's that hard to cp the fdi file from
> /usr/share/hal/fdi into /etc/hal/fdi and simply change the quirks for
> your model.
> Especially as this is very well documented.
I think you vastly overestimate the willingness or ability of a
nontechnical user to make the quirk changes you are describing.
Either that, or too may years to doing technical support have made me
very, very cynical in this department.
I have no problem picking one method of overriding HAL parameters and
coding to it exclusivly.
But that capability must be there, if only for troubleshooting purposes.
> > The easiest thing for me to do as a service to the end users is to make
> > it easy for them to override HAL when it is getting it wrong. The
> > current quirk_none is not the best way of doing that, but it is loads
> > easier to say either of
> > now, type 'echo video >>/etc/pm/blacklist'
> > now, type 'echo --quirk-none >>/etc/pm/parameters'
> As I explained in my earlier mail, this only allows to clear the
> quirks, not override them. In case you need --quirk-s3-bios, it's not
> With a hal fdi file in /etc/ you can easily achieve this.
I am well aware of what my QUIRK_NONE patches do and do not do. They
meet my needs. Any help generalizing them would ne much appreciated.
Ubuntu Certified Professional
More information about the Pm-utils