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    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans