[Suspend-devel] Whitelisting no-pm-quirks

[David Zeuthen]

On Fri, 2007-05-04 at 00:12 +0200, Holger Macht wrote:
> Still, what we definitely want is _one single_ architecture independent
> whitelist. And there is where hal-info comes in which is easy to update
> for distributions etc. IMHO. I'm seeing this difficulty with the two
> different lists for quite some time know and thought about possible
> solutions. AFAICS, the main reason for heaving s2ram internal whitelist is
> that s2ram can be used completely without any trace of hal on some
> system. 

Today I'd say that 99% of all machines that need suspend quirks use HAL
anyway... just based on what software people use.. (embedded stuff is
more one-off and one can customize this as one pleases.. and usually
embedded don't require quirks since it's usually not PC style
hardware). 

Anyway, I know it's fine and all to not require HAL.. I mean, some
people do go out of their way to avoid having glib or Qt installed and
they're happy with twm instead of KDE/NOME/XFCE and so on... but in this
case it's just damn impractical since it means a ton of duplication
currently is going on... but as the maintainer of HAL I'm obviously
rather biased, hehe :-). I guess I'm just frustrated about the whole
thing. Anyway, sorry for ranting.

    David