From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] PM: Introduce new top level suspend and hibernation callbacks (rev. 8) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 06:47:36 +1000 Message-ID: <1208206056.6958.176.camel@pasglop> References: Reply-To: benh@kernel.crashing.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Alan Stern Cc: Nigel Cunningham , LKML , Jesse Barnes , ACPI Devel Maling List , pm list , Alexey Starikovskiy , Andrew Morton List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 10:51 -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > On Sun, 13 Apr 2008, David Brownell wrote: > > > I sort of agree. Looking at it from a whole-system perspective, > > suspending needs to be able to chitchat with userspace ... and I > > don't think that can be done *before* writing to /sys/power/state > > in an acceptably generic/portable way. (Briefly, applications > > need to have clean stopping points and be able to arrange system > > wakeup. They may well have more work to do than most drivers.) > > Pavel's recent work aside, the only way to initiate a system sleep is > from userspace. So it seems natural for all application notifications > to be made by the initiating program, perhaps via dbus. No. Certainly not via dbus. Ben. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760562AbYDNUy7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Apr 2008 16:54:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753554AbYDNUyv (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Apr 2008 16:54:51 -0400 Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:42137 "EHLO gate.crashing.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751843AbYDNUyu (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Apr 2008 16:54:50 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] PM: Introduce new top level suspend and hibernation callbacks (rev. 8) From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Reply-To: benh@kernel.crashing.org To: Alan Stern Cc: David Brownell , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Greg KH , pm list , ACPI Devel Maling List , Len Brown , LKML , Alexey Starikovskiy , Pavel Machek , Oliver Neukum , Nigel Cunningham , Jesse Barnes , Andrew Morton In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 06:47:36 +1000 Message-Id: <1208206056.6958.176.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 10:51 -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > On Sun, 13 Apr 2008, David Brownell wrote: > > > I sort of agree. Looking at it from a whole-system perspective, > > suspending needs to be able to chitchat with userspace ... and I > > don't think that can be done *before* writing to /sys/power/state > > in an acceptably generic/portable way. (Briefly, applications > > need to have clean stopping points and be able to arrange system > > wakeup. They may well have more work to do than most drivers.) > > Pavel's recent work aside, the only way to initiate a system sleep is > from userspace. So it seems natural for all application notifications > to be made by the initiating program, perhaps via dbus. No. Certainly not via dbus. Ben.