From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Richard Hughes Subject: Re: suspend / hibernate nomenclature Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2009 08:45:59 +0000 Message-ID: <15e53e180903080045x5874f05cv5ea836d73e3855b1@mail.gmail.com> References: <1235992429.3858.58.camel@hughsie-work.lan> <20090307154842.GA3947@srcf.ucam.org> <20090307164151.GB24668@khazad-dum.debian.net> <20090307164840.GA4800@srcf.ucam.org> <15e53e180903071225h47bcdbaj83986b50f06135c3@mail.gmail.com> <20090307203946.GA9942@srcf.ucam.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from fk-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.128.190]:15191 "EHLO fk-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751269AbZCHIqD convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Mar 2009 04:46:03 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20090307203946.GA9942@srcf.ucam.org> Sender: linux-input-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org To: Matthew Garrett Cc: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh , linux-acpi , Peter Hutterer , linux-input , Matthias Clasen On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 8:39 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: > We don't have to at all - as far as I've been able to tell, the kerne= l > is utterly consistent in its current usage. The only drivers that emi= t > KEY_SLEEP are either embedded-specific (where it's clearly suspend to > RAM and not hibernate), the ACPI driver (where usage in other operati= ng > 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 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0142 =A0 =A0 /* SC Syste= m Sleep */ > +#define KEY_SUSPEND_TO_RAM =A0 =A0 142 =A0 =A0 /* 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 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0KEY_SUSPEND_TO_RAM > +#define KEY_SUSPEND =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0KEY_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