Whitelisting no-pm-quirks

[Danny Kukawka]

On Donnerstag, 3. Mai 2007, David Zeuthen wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 10:40 +0200, Danny Kukawka wrote:
> > The point is not using s2ram or that s2ram would break. The point is that
> > removing the quirk would break resume if you suspend via init=/bin/bash
> > (the testcase) or console. This change only work under X. All this has
> > nothing to do with s2ram, only with the suspend itself.
>
> I'll rephrase my questions
>
>  1. Is it correct than s2ram has it's own list of quirks?

Currently yes

>  2. Are you using s2ram instead of pm-utils?

No

>  3. If so, do you plan to switch to pm-utils?

No, because of 2. ;-)

>  4. If you're switching to pm-utils will you be using s2ram as part of
>     pm-utils?

This is what we already do.

> The problem here is with multiple quirk lists - we really want to avoid
> that. Thanks.

Currently s2ram use it own whitelist, because they work for us perfectly. All 
entries in the list which are no marked a UNSURE are there because the SUSE 
Mobile Devices Team, SUSE Q&A, SUSE developer/users or users from other ppl. 
tested/verified the machines like in this testplan: 
http://en.opensuse.org/S2ram#My_machine_is_not_in_the_whitelist.2C_what_can_i_do.3F

IIRC the s2ram developers already think about adding support for the HAL 
quirks, maybe in some kind of mixed mode (if there are no HAL info's use the 
own whitelist). I add the devel mailinglist to CC, I think they can tell 
more.

Danny