Re: [RFC] Add "rpm_not_supported" flag

Alan Stern
2014-06-28T15:32:24Z

On Fri, 27 Jun 2014, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 04:11:35PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Jun 2014, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> >
> > > > One side point: The patch changes the string displayed for the
> > > > power/runtime_status attribute file when disable_depth > 0. Instead of
> > > > "unsupported", it will now say "disabled". The attribute will contain
> > > > "not supported" when the new flag is set.
> > > >
> > > > Is this acceptable?
> > >
> > > Why change the "unsupported" string? Can't we just leave that one
> > > alone? I'd prefer to not break userspace tools...
> >
> > I changed it because it's wrong. disable_depth > 0 means that runtime
> > PM has temporarily been disabled, or was never enabled in the first
> > place. It doesn't mean that runtime PM is unsupported.
> >
> > In fact, the word "unsupported" is ambiguous. Does it mean unsupported
> > by the hardware or unsupported by the kernel? The hardware can't
> > change, but the kernel can be altered by loading a module.
> >
> > If that change is too intrusive, I can remove it from the patch.
>
> Do you know of any tools that actually look at these files?

I don't. Of course, that doesn't mean much.

> If there isn't any, then we can try to change it and see who screams :)

It'll be a learning experience...

Alan Stern