On Fri, 3 Aug 2007, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 06:15:05PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
>
> > Well, if you do this, then you can pretty much delete the whole quirk
> > table we have, right?
>
> At the moment, yes.
>
> > And personally, I want to do better than Windows XP when it comes to
> > power management. This patch is only going to suspend a very tiny
> > subset of devices, including a whole bunch of ones that do not even have
> > drivers in Linux, causing our power footprint to be bigger than needed.
>
> I agree. I'd much rather see us suspending devices whenever possible -
> it's just that I have concerns over the scalability of the blacklist,
> given the number of devices that seem to have issues.
While I agree in general, perhaps a different approach would work
better. For instance, we could blacklist a few known-bad device
classes (maybe even using the existing blacklist) rather than
whitelisting a few known-good ones -- or trying to blacklist each
member of the bad classes!
Also, building something this sweeping into a kernel driver feels like
a mistake. It ought to be more easily configurable from userspace, say
via a sysfs file. Although this wouldn't be so important if we take
the blacklist-classes route.
Alan Stern
-
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]
