[Pm-utils] [PATCH] parse video quirks in uswsusp sleep module

[Victor Lowther]

On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 23:11 +0100, Tim Dijkstra wrote:
> Op Sun, 16 Mar 2008 21:37:28 -0500
> schreef Victor Lowther <victor.lowther at gmail.com>:
> 
> > > Actually, I think the QUIRKS_NONE option has a slightly different
> > > meaning: If no quirks are passed to pm-suspend, pm-suspend does not
> > > know if that is a) because the machine doesn't require quirks
> > > b) because the machine hasn't been tested yet.  
> > 
> > huh?  In the case where hal is invoking pm-utils, I would think that
> > it would simply not invoke pm-utils at all if the machine is not in
> > the database.  
> 
> I'm not following the discussion at all, but I accidentally read these
> sentences and I had something to add.
> 
> --quirk-none was added on my instigation (maybe I added it myself now
> I come to think of it) specifically to be able to distinguish ``I don't
> know this machine'' from ``I DO know this machine, it needs no(ne)
> quirks''. And --quirk-none would than be the latter. I needed this
> distinction to be able to tell s3ram to not do any quirks, or to 
> try to use the internal whitelist in the case it was unknown to hal.

Thanks for the clarification,  Tim.  At this point, I do not have a
problem reverting --quirk-none to mean that -- the quirk-mangling
machinery i have added for debugging is powerful enough to take care of
the case I was using it for, and the folks on the hal list seem to be
having a nice, healthy argument that may lead to quirks getting much
more reliable.

> grts Tim   
> 
-- 
Victor Lowther
Ubuntu Certified Professional