On Wed, 2005-06-01 at 10:13 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > > Why do you need it? Do you initiate suspend without userland asking > > > you to? > > > > Because there is an existing API, via /dev/apm_bios, and that's all X > > understands ! And because I've always done that ;) > > Try stopping doing that ;-). Certainly not short-term. Again, it would be nice to have something better, but heh, you need to go step by step. I have this big rework where I re-implement most of the pmac suspend code on top of the generic code (cleans up a lot of stuff) but I don't want to touch the userland ABI for now, that would be too much of a chance. And /dev/apm_bios X notofication stuff seems to actually fix problems for some users. > [On i386, we do not emulate apm, and it still works. Reason is that we > switch to other console before suspend, so X has to give up > framebuffer control, anyway.] Well, I sort-of work :) I have reported cases of X locking the machine up under some circumstances. Note that historically, I was not switching consoles in the pmac PM code, though I'm doing it nowadays. There are other uses of those "events" in /dev/apm_bios. Some people run scripts on resume triggered by these for example, etc... I'd rather not break an existing and relied upon userland interface now, at least not until we have a well accepted replacement that has been around for some time. I do agree however that it may be nice to make the APM emulation code more generic & shared between architectures. That's something I intend to look into next. But I would like my current stuff to get in after 2.6.12 is released. Ben.
