<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/" /> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW --- - Laptop not suspending when lid is closed." href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=76267#c10">Comment # 10</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW --- - Laptop not suspending when lid is closed." href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=76267">bug 76267</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:dar@darklajid.de" title="Benjamin Podszun <dar@darklajid.de>"> Benjamin Podszun</a> <pre>This issue came just up on the mailing list again, with a patch [1]. As far as I can tell the change that introduced this behavior is at [2]. Note that the commit message at this point said 'logind: ignore lid switch if more than 1 display is connected', but the code checked for 'if the number of displays is not 0'. The check as hinted at by the commit message would be fine - users with Nvidia blobs would end up with "0" displays (not > 1, suspending fine). A configuration parameter (logind.conf for example) would certainly be helpful, but it would also help to understand at what point the mismatch between commit message (> 1) and code (!= 1) leaned to the latter? The current code (as seen in the patch) has the following comment, introduced in a later commit [3]: /* If we have more than one or no displays connected, * don't react to lid closing. The no display case we * treat like this under the assumption that there is * no modern drm driver available. */ At this point I'm drawing a blank here - I wouldn't understand the requirement for the no display case. I'm just a curious end user and certainly lack the insights necessary. "Lid closing" can only happen on laptops, right? Which drivers are the reasons for the 0-case here, if nouveau for example isn't it? Wouldn't most (all?) free drivers come up with a valid number here? Is the ratio of laptops with no modern drm drivers available expected to be much larger than the nvidia user base? I might be totally off, but this reads like a case for 'running a very recent systemd based system on a laptop with outdated video drivers'. Obviously (I'm serious, no snark) I'm not clever enough to be sure about that, nor do I know how common that case is. Given that the whole point of that exception is to avoid suspending - IF you close the lid - AND have no 'modern' video drivers - AND actually have more than one display connected isn't that more rare than closing one's laptop and taking it somewhere, period? Plus, isn't there a working way to solve that issue (systemd-inhibit) if you're in the special case above? It seems the commit fixed a scenario that already had a configurable workaround and introduced a problem for nvidia users without a configurable workaround? [4] 1: <a href="http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.sysutils.systemd.devel/18764">http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.sysutils.systemd.devel/18764</a> 2: <a href="http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd/commit/src/login/logind-action.c?id=6a79c58603ea816a1b4fa1520397b4e138bc1ca0">http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd/commit/src/login/logind-action.c?id=6a79c58603ea816a1b4fa1520397b4e138bc1ca0</a> 3: <a href="http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd/commit/src/login/logind-action.c?id=f9cd6be10ece07e10488c05e270a0b5860779864">http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd/commit/src/login/logind-action.c?id=f9cd6be10ece07e10488c05e270a0b5860779864</a> 4: Not quite true - people in the Arch Linux tracker suggest using acpid events/hooks to issue systemctl suspend</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the QA Contact for the bug.</li> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>