[Pm-utils] [PATCH 1/2] Enable autodetection and stacking of sleep methods.

Tim Dijkstra newsuser at famdijkstra.org
Tue Sep 16 02:34:54 PDT 2008

Op Wed, 10 Sep 2008 17:12:48 -0500
schreef Victor Lowther <victor.lowther at gmail.com>:

> On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 22:10 +0200, Danny Kukawka wrote:
> > On Dienstag, 9. September 2008, Victor Lowther wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 11:24 +0200, Tim Dijkstra wrote:
> > > > Victor Lowther schreef:

> > That's not really a reason to drop s2ram support. There are good
reasons, without starting any old discussion again, to use s2ram
instead of 99video.
> Well, I never found any of those reasons convincing -- s2ram has its
internal whitelist and it is a single executable, but those are not
compelling reasons to me.  If there is something beyond those, I am
willing to be enlightened.

It is also rumored to be more stable. Because it will freeze all
processes except the one that does all the quirk handling.

> > If you don't have s2ram (which you obviously do), you have no
> > trouble. And for the rest, which want to use s2ram, they should report
it to the s2ram maintainers. But this isn't your problem at all. You
make it only complicated for all these users. They have to revert your
patch ....
> My main issue is maintenance related -- pm-utils has to force s2ram to
do what 99video would do as well in order to handle the quirks that HAL
asks us to.

We could also just drop 99video and just use s2ram that would be much
easier in maintaining. ;)

> From a maintenance standpoint, that buys me nothing
> but maintaining two different mechanisms to handle quirks where one
would do the job.  If it cost nothing to maintain compatibility with
s2ram (say, by making it take the same commandline parameters that hal
passes and having it on a release schedule), it might be another matter,
but right now the easiest way for me to deal with s2ram is to treat it
as nothing but another mechanism to echo mem
> > /sys/power/state, and we already handle that part normally.

There are enough people who want to maintain the uswsusp part in
pm-utils, they will have to do it anyway for their respective

So if you add all the work that all pm-utils maintainers have to do, their
is no maintenance benefit to remove uswsusp support. So I urge you to not
apply your patch.

> > > s2disk and s2both are still supported by this patch series, and now
we force s2both to run quirkless.  I could have s2ram do the same
thing, but since all it ends up doing the same as what we already
do, it is just as easy to fall back to the kernel method.

s2both needs the quirks too.

> > That all is easy to say if you don't use s2ram. And not everyone is
doing what you do.
> Right.  And once pci_state and no_fb support is merged, there will be no
functional difference between 99video and s2ram, except that s2ram has
an internal whitelist that pm-utils ignores by design in favor of the
quirks that HAL gives us.

Until s2ram adds another quirk, which has to be added to hal and

grts Tim

More information about the Pm-utils mailing list