On Sun, Mar 08, 2009 at 08:45:59AM +0000, Richard Hughes wrote: > On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 8:39 PM, Matthew Garrett <mjg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > We don't have to at all - as far as I've been able to tell, the kernel > > is utterly consistent in its current usage. The only drivers that emit > > KEY_SLEEP are either embedded-specific (where it's clearly suspend to > > RAM and not hibernate), the ACPI driver (where usage in other operating > > systems is consistent with it being suspent to RAM) and the panasonic > > and thinkpad drivers which use it consistently. If there's any > > confusion, it's over the fact that KEY_SUSPEND is is used for suspend to > > RAM in a (smaller) number of places. > > The fact that we're mapping x->y and y->x is the reason people keep > getting it wrong. Sure, doing things differently would have made sense several years ago when nobody was relying on this behaviour. We don't have that option now - making this change will break things, and we've got no idea how much it'll break. > > I'd suggest reverting these current patches and doing something like the > > following and then changing any drivers where it's worth clarifying > > things. This has exactly the same effect with the advantage that no > > userspace needs to be changed. > > So how do we specify a sleep button where policy is to be decided by > userspace? For instance, the sleep button on a remote control? Do we > hardcode policy in the kernel? Just carry on using KEY_SLEEP for that. We've already got the UI for it. > > -#define KEY_SLEEP 142 /* SC System Sleep */ > > +#define KEY_SUSPEND_TO_RAM 142 /* SC System Sleep */ > > I deliberately avoided using the terms DISK and RAM in the key defines > used in my patch. Why? This isn't user-visible. The aim is to reduce confusion amongst driver authors, not be consistent with userspace terminology. > > +/* Deprecated - use KEY_SUSPEND_TO_RAM and KEY_HIBERNATE instead */ > > +#define KEY_SLEEP KEY_SUSPEND_TO_RAM > > +#define KEY_SUSPEND KEY_HIBERNATE > > Yet more confusion. Can't we sort this mess out once and for all? If > you're that bothered about userspace using the bodged mappings, I > would suggest changing my patch so that KEY_SLEEP is 247, > KEY_HIBERNATE is 205 and KEY_SUSPEND is 142. No, then the behaviour of userspace would depend on whether it had been recompiled or not. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- 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
