DeviceKit-power future plans

[David Zeuthen]

On Fri, 2008-08-15 at 11:41 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
> >  - The Suspend() method on HAL takes a parameter on how long to sleep;
> >    AFAIK no one uses this mostly because the wakeup code in Linux sucks.
> >    The one on DeviceKit-power doesn't. Should it?
> 
> I'm not sure. Maybe another method SetWakeUp time might be better, as
> then we can just return with NotSupported if the system can't do it.
> Plus then we support wake up from hibernation and shutdown for free.

Sounds a bit racy. But it just might work. Something to think about.

> >  - The udev rules should probably use DKP_ID_BATTERY instead of
> >    ID_BATTERY. Just to be nice and not pollute the main name space.
> 
> Done. Should all the properties be DPK prefixed? For instance:
> 
> SYSFS{idVendor}=="046d", SYSFS{idProduct}=="c508",
> ENV{ID_PRODUCT}="Cordless Optical TrackMan",
> ENV{DKP_ID_BATTERY_TYPE}="mouse", ENV{ID_CSR_HAS_SMS}="1"

Where does ID_CSR_HAS_SMS come from?

> >    - and if do want this
> >      - should be licensed more liberally (MIT instead of GPL)
> >      - consistency!
> 
> Right, I'm pretty bad at licences. I've go no problem with MIT, just all
> your original source files were GPLv2+

Thinking about the license some more, AFL2.1 + GPLv2+ is probably better
since that's the license for libdbus-glib and libdbus.

Thinking about the name some more, it's probably wrong to call it
libdevkit-power; it should be libdevkit-power-gobject.

> > I don't see why DeviceKit-power should be involved with dealing with
> > quirks - I think we should just punt the quirks to the pm-utils project,
> > e.g. make sure that project delivers the right quirks if the system
> > needs it (and I think pm-utils should just use udev rules but that's up
> > to the pm-utils maintainers). 
> 
> udev rules on what device?

I don't know. That's up to the pm-utils team I think.

    David