Re: RE: on-ness

Pavel Machek
2006-04-21T19:01:21Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1469 bytes --]

Hi!
> > > > > Well, the big problem with names and anything "system specific" is that it
> > > > > makes _abstractions_ harder. It makes userspace's life harder, as it needs
> > > > > to know what "idle" means on a specific system, instead.
> > > >
> > > > If by "userspace" we can mean just "what writes the /sys/power/state file",
> > > > it's straightforward for a given system to provide mappings between some
> > > > common tokens ("standby", "mem", etc) to a system-specific meaning.
> > >
> > > Uh. Not /sys/power/state. But /sys/devices/...../power/{[a],[b],[c]} where
> > > [a], [b] and [c] need sensible names.
> >
> > Well, "on" could have one defined meaning. Maybe it's the only option
> > available, until drivers add intelligence. I don't see any problem
> > with the other names being system-specific, since it's rather unlikely
> > that a PCI_D3hot state will ever appear on most embedded ARM boxes.
> > And if any userspace code tries to set power states, it had darn well
> > better understand exactly what's going on.
>
> Yes. However if a network managing userspace code wants to set the power
> conusmption of a WLAN device to the lowest possible setting, it shouldn't
> need a configuration file specific for each platform.

I'd say that "on" and "off" are well defined.

For certain classes (like ethernet), other states may be common
between platforms, too, like "off-with-WOL".
Pavel
--
Thanks for all the (sleeping) penguins.