Messages in this thread | | | From | Geert Uytterhoeven <> | Date | Tue, 26 Jun 2018 12:06:16 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] PM / wakeup: Add callback for wake-up change notification |
| |
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 3:25 PM Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 02:15:38PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 12:35 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > The flip side of that is that either suspend and resume or poweroff are > > > broken for userspace unless they know about this magic sysfs file which > > > isn't great either. > > > But to me that isn't that much different from an RTC wake alarm, say. > > > Enabling it to wake up the system in general isn't sufficient, you > > also need to actually set the alarm using a different interface.
The RTC wake alarm time is indeed different, as it is not a simple boolean flag. It is also more natural for the user, who expects to need to find some way to configure the wake-up time.
> It seems more like hardware breakage we're trying to fix than a feature > - it's not like it's adding something we didn't have already (like > setting a time in an alarm where the alarm is an additional thing), more > just trying to execute on an existing user interface successfully. I > can see that there's a case that it doesn't map very well onto the > standard interfaces so perhaps we have to add something on the side as > the hardware is just too horrible to fit in with the standard interfaces > and we have to do that.
My main worry is usability: with a separate sysfs file, we need to document the file, and the user needs to be aware of it.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
-- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
| |