[Suspend-devel] Whitelisting no-pm-quirks

[Holger Macht]

On Thu 03. May - 18:45:10, David Zeuthen wrote:
> 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.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not for having a compiled whitelist.c at all. I
also think that a C-code whitelist is something you need to get get used
to ;-)

You just need to keep in mind that the whitelist contained in s2ram is the
most supported and complete one out there at the moment. So it would be
wrong to just continue maintaining a list in hal-info without looking for
a common solution.

Regards,
	Holger