Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:23:37 -0500 | From | Dave Jones <> | Subject | Re: broken suspend in .2.6.25-rc3 on T61p (was Re: new regression in 2.6.25-rc3: no keyboard/lid acpi events on thinkpad T61p) |
| |
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 10:56:41PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Seems like pm-utils is just a thin wrapper around s2ram, at least in > version debian ships. It does not seem to have its own whitelist.
The actual whitelists still live in hal (or specifically hal-data), rather than pm-utils. /usr/share/hal/fdi/information/10freedesktop/20-video-quirk-pm-* for example. This gets passed down to pm-utils by hal.
> /usr/lib/pm-utils/functions > > ... > > if [ -x /usr/sbin/s2ram ]; then > if [ -n "$S2RAM_OPTS" ]; then > # Trust HAL or the user to pass the correct > options > /usr/sbin/s2ram $S2RAM_OPTS > elif /usr/sbin/s2ram --test > /dev/null ; then > # Trust s2ram's internal whitelist > /usr/sbin/s2ram > else > # Unknown machine > echo "This machine is unkown, please try to > find out how to suspend this machine. See s2ram(8)." > fi > else > echo -n "mem" > /sys/power/state > fi
Seems to be a debian specific change, the variant in Fedora, nor upstream pm-utils doesn't have any of that. Possibly because it's a dumb idea to have two separate sources of the same information.
> ...so it is ready to use s2ram, but will fall back to > echo. Unfortunately, that will mean no video resume on _many_ > machines. > > To give some numbers: according to s2ram whitelist, we can restore > video on 410 machines. On 74 of them, s2ram is not needed. So > approximately 80% of machines need s2ram (at least in configuration > without X running).... > > Pretty please, can we get s2ram for Fedora, so that video is restored > there?
I'm not the gatekeeper of what goes into Fedora userspace, but I'm pretty certain the path forward has already been decided. Running a modern Fedora desktop installation without hal just isn't feasible.
Dave
-- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
| |