Hi!
> > The existence of the power/state interface wasn't a bug - it was a
> > deliberate decision to add it. It's the only reason the
> > dpm_runtime_suspend() interface exists.
Actually, if we noticed power/state during PM framework review, it
would have been killed. It is just way too ugly.
> > > In contrast, the /sys/devices/.../power/state API has never had many
> > > users beyond developers trying to test their drivers (without taking
> > > the whole system into a low power state, which probably didn't work
> > > in any case), and has *always* been problematic. And the change you
> > > object to doesn't "break" anything fundamental, either. Everything
> > > still works.
> >
> > It's used on every Ubuntu and Suse system,
>
> Odd how the relevant Suse developers didn't mention any issues with
> those files going away, any of the times problems with them were
> discussed on the PM list. Also, I have a Suse system that doesn't
> use those files for anything ... maybe only newer release use it.
Not on *every* suse system. power/state is known to oops kernels, so
it is only enabled when user explicitely asks for 'dangerous aggresive
experimental power saving' or something like that.
--
Thanks for all the (sleeping) penguins.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
