From: Juliusz C. <jc...@pp...> - 2002-06-03 10:20:44
|
>> Isn't that a policy issue that should be handled by ``the'' userspace >> power-management daemon? > Yes you're absolutely right. So the interface I'm talking about is how the > daemon tells the kernel to go to S4. > 1) there is some way for the daemon to find out what S4 > implementations exist and then write the correct value to > /proc/acpi/sleep [or] 3) have only 1 possible value to write > regardless of S4 type, and the kernel does the right thing. > we might as well do #3, which makes things a little easier for the daemon. Well, it's a tradeoff between kernel cleverness and userspace cleverness. Everything else being equal, I'd much rather have the cleverness in userspace. The userspace daemon is going to have to decide between suspend methods anyway -- low battery warning arrives, choose between scheduling a shutdown or S4 or S1 or APM suspend. Why duplicate this functionality in the kernel? >> (Now what I'd like to know: who is ``the'' userspace daemon today?) > While it's rather broken at the moment, the plan is to have ospmd fulfill > that role. Does it speak APM yet? We really need a uniform interface. Juliusz |