Re: MACHINE_FEATURE changes

[Michael 'Mickey' Lauer <mickey@vanille-media.de>]

Am Freitag, den 20.11.2009, 14:46 +0000 schrieb Graeme Gregory:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:39:41 +0100
> Michael 'Mickey' Lauer <mickey@vanille-media.de> wrote:
> 
> > Am Freitag, den 20.11.2009, 15:30 +0100 schrieb Marcin Juszkiewicz:
> > > Dnia piątek, 20 listopada 2009 o 15:24:39 Sebastian Spaeth
> > > napisał(a):
> > > 
> > > > Better suggestions on how to achieve this are welcome.
> > > 
> > > In distro config:
> > > 
> > > MACHINE_FEATURES_om-gta01 = "this that those butnoapm"
> > > 
> > > This way your distro has what you want and others have what was set
> > > in machine config.
> > 
> > Good idea.
> > 
> > For the records though, I would consider it being the machine
> > maintainer's call to define the machine config. If he decides that apm
> > is very misleading on said machine, perhaps because without taking
> > special care about the peripheral devices there will no be proper
> > suspend in the first place, then I might be inclined to follow this
> > reasoning and leave apm out there...
> > 
> 
> That indicates to me that FSO is broken.

On the contrary, dearest friend. FSO is actually one of the few things
which get suspend and resume right on these machines.

>  The last I checked any
> application which has opened /dev/apm_bios can choose to hold off
> the suspend until it has finished doing stuff(tm)

It's not about /dev/apm_bios, it about cooperation with userland that
needs to do certain things like configuring the modem and the gps
devices to get the suspend to work in a deterministic way.

If someone wants to write apm.d script that do the same, they can go for
it and then enable apm per DISTRO or as Koen indicated, per TASK_APM.

:M: