On Thursday 20 September 2007, Frans Pop wrote: > On Thursday 20 September 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Thursday, 20 September 2007 20:33, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote: > > > Frans Pop wrote: > > > > Maybe S0 should be taken outside the #ifdef and the loop as that > > > > state is also basically always there? > > > > > > Don't think it is worth the trouble. We already have this loop almost > > > completely unrolled, let's not make it complete mess... > > > > Well, you could use "(supports S0" instead of just "(supports". ;-) > > After thinking about this a bit more, I think this does make sense for > three (admittedly minor) reasons: > - consistency between messages with and without CONFIG_SUSPEND > - consistency with /proc/acpi/sleep > - avoiding unnecessary change from previous versions. One additional reason... With current code, sleep_states(0) will not be set if compiled without CONFIG_SUSPEND, which means that S0 will also disappear from /proc/acpi/sleep. With pre-2.6.23 code it would be listed there. I think that is even a more relevant change than the display issue and could possibly even be considered a user-space interface regression. My proposed patch fixes that too. Note that the patch currently does not call acpi_get_sleep_type_data for S0, but (partially from Rafael's comment) I was assuming that for S0 that does not really matter. If it does, then the patch could easily be adjusted to include that. - 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
