Re: suspend / hibernate nomenclature

[Richard Hughes <hughsient@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 8:39 PM, Matthew Garrett <mjg@redhat.com> wrote:
> We don't have to at all - as far as I've been able to tell, the kernel
> is utterly consistent in its current usage. The only drivers that emit
> KEY_SLEEP are either embedded-specific (where it's clearly suspend to
> RAM and not hibernate), the ACPI driver (where usage in other operating
> systems is consistent with it being suspent to RAM) and the panasonic
> and thinkpad drivers which use it consistently. If there's any
> confusion, it's over the fact that KEY_SUSPEND is is used for suspend to
> RAM in a (smaller) number of places.

The fact that we're mapping x->y and y->x is the reason people keep
getting it wrong.

> I'd suggest reverting these current patches and doing something like the
> following and then changing any drivers where it's worth clarifying
> things. This has exactly the same effect with the advantage that no
> userspace needs to be changed.

So how do we specify a sleep button where policy is to be decided by
userspace? For instance, the sleep button on a remote control? Do we
hardcode policy in the kernel?

> -#define KEY_SLEEP              142     /* SC System Sleep */
> +#define KEY_SUSPEND_TO_RAM     142     /* SC System Sleep */

I deliberately avoided using the terms DISK and RAM in the key defines
used in my patch.

> +/* Deprecated - use KEY_SUSPEND_TO_RAM and KEY_HIBERNATE instead */
> +#define KEY_SLEEP              KEY_SUSPEND_TO_RAM
> +#define KEY_SUSPEND            KEY_HIBERNATE

Yet more confusion. Can't we sort this mess out once and for all? If
you're that bothered about userspace using the bodged mappings, I
would suggest changing my patch so that KEY_SLEEP is 247,
KEY_HIBERNATE is 205 and KEY_SUSPEND is 142.

Richard.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html