From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: suspend / hibernate nomenclature Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2009 15:48:42 +0000 Message-ID: <20090307154842.GA3947@srcf.ucam.org> References: <1235992429.3858.58.camel@hughsie-work.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:34622 "EHLO vavatch.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752780AbZCGPsr (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 Mar 2009 10:48:47 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1235992429.3858.58.camel@hughsie-work.lan> Sender: linux-input-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org To: Richard Hughes Cc: linux-acpi , Peter Hutterer , linux-input , Matthias Clasen On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 11:13:49AM +0000, Richard Hughes wrote: > After reviewing the platform drivers in ACPI, it appears few of them > know whether KEY_SLEEP corresponds to suspend or hibernate, and > KEY_SUSPEND seems to be used for hibernate. Basically, it's a mess. KEY_SUSPEND has always been pretty clearly used for hibernate for, well, forever. I don't think the distinction is a useful one. How many machines are going to have both a sleep and a suspend key? This is a user-visible change in behaviour. I think we're too entrenched for it to make much of a difference now. Adding a #define KEY_HIBERNATE KEY_SUSPEND sounds fine to me, but I really don't think we need anything more. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org