lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Jun]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: 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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:03    [W:0.021 / U:0.236 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site