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. Ok. > 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. Well, but that means that we can get those "please don't use these callbacks if you can avoid it" messages, right :-). Seems like lots of stuff is going to happen in pm post-2.6.12: I'd like to finally fix pm_message_t, too... Pavel
