On Sunday 08 July 2007, Richard Hughes wrote: > On Sun, 2007-07-08 at 12:17 -0700, David Brownell wrote: > > > > I think so ... although that's unfortunately another difference > > between the legacy x86-mostly code and the newer RTC framework. > > (sorry for hijacking the thread) I changed $SUBJECT ... > Is this the interface should stuff like HAL use to do: > > * Suspend for 10 minutes > * auto wakeup and then hibernate... That is, "Suspend-to-RAM" or "standby"? Yes, assuming that works on this particular system. Arguably that would be a direction for cpuidle to think about too, but I think alarm-driven wakeup is more ready-to-use at this point. > I figure we can do a suspend setting the rtc using the ioctls and then > we wakeup, and HAL has to know that we woke up from the alarm rather > than from a lid event or keypress. ... although I don't know whether that particular distinction is made to userspace right now. ACPI provides a bit like that, and at least a few other systems can do something analagous. That is, we may want to provide a bit more information about the specific event which triggered wakeup. I don't believe there is such an interface, in general. Plus, the notion seems kind of racey to me. (If you press a key right while the wakealarm fires, you don't want hibernation..) > Is this something we can do (or should do) for OLPC and general ACPI? I'd certainly rather see laptops doing that than what they do now: running the battery out, and needing filesystem recovery!! - Dave - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
