Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 2 Jun 2004 10:15:42 -0700 | From | Greg KH <> | Subject | Re: two patches - request for comments |
| |
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 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |