[Pm-utils] [PATCH 1/2] Enable autodetection and stacking of sleep methods.

[Tim Dijkstra]

Op Wed, 10 Sep 2008 17:12:48 -0500
schreef Victor Lowther <victor.lowther at gmail.com>:

> 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