Re: two patches - request for comments

[Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>]

On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 01:00:36AM +0400, Andrew Zabolotny wrote:
> 
> In theory, if we would use the standard power interface, it could use the
> different levels of power saving, e.g. 0 - controller and LCD on, 1,2 - LCD
> off, controller on, 3,4 - both off.

Please use the standard power interface, and use the standard levels of
power state.  That's why we _have_ this driver model in the first
place...

> > So none of my objections are terribly crucial, and if Greg et al don't 
> > have a problem with device-class-specific PM interfaces that have 
> > different semantics and/or capabilities than those of the device 
> > power/state attributes then I don't have much of a problem with it 
> > either.  Just seems worthwhile to check whether there's improvements 
> > needed in the existing PM interfaces instead.

I do have a problem with device-class-specific PM interfaces that have
different semantics from the whole rest of the system.

> Well, the power interface under drivers/ is available for framebuffer.
> If it would handle it properly (the framebuffer drivers I've tried
> don't, alas)

Then they need to be fixed to do so.

thanks,

greg k-h