Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Sun, Mar 08, 2009 at 09:56:45PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> On Sunday 08 March 2009, Matthew Garrett wrote: >> > 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. >> >> Which is a good enough reason to avoid it. >> >> Alternatively, we can add completely new definitions _along_ _with_ the >> old ones, mark the old ones as obsolete (after some time) and try to make >> the user space start using the new ones only (that may be difficult, >> though). >> >> I said I liked the names, but I didn't realize that changing them would >> break things. >> > > I don't think we want to break anything if we can help it. The problem > with Richard's patch is that it changes meaning of KEY_SUSPEND from STD > to STR. I would prefer if we could do the following: > > - KEY_SLEEP - leave the keycode, the action should be the default > system state defined by either platform or user. I expect that the vast > majority of system have default state similar to S3 so there should not > be anysurprises. > > - KEY_SUSPEND - provide better comment for its intended usage and maybe > add KEY_HIBERNATE alias. > > - KEY_SUSPEND2RAM - add a new definition. > > Do you think this would this work? > > I intend to back out the patch in question for the time being. > What about systems that have clear indication of STR and STD on respective keys? Should they continue to return KEY_SLEEP for STR? I think this conflicts with definition above. So in the long run those should be changed to return KEY_SUSPEND2RAM it seems. -- 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
