On Sun 2007-01-07 19:31:19, David Brownell wrote: > On Saturday 06 January 2007 9:54 pm, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 06, 2007 at 02:21:41PM -0800, David Brownell wrote: > > > > > Please tell me you mean "devices with a /sys/devices/.../power/wakeup" > > > attribute. And that ACPI is finally going to start working with those > > > attributes ... > > > > It's not necessarily possible to map from an ACPI object with a wakeup > > capability to a Linux device, > > That seems singularly useless then. If there's no such mapping, there's > really no point to the /proc/acpi/wakeup table... why not just always > enable every possible device as a wakeup source, since that information > is evidently not designed to be usable for anything? If that's the case, please keep the interface in /proc. One useless interface is bad... two of them ... :-). Anyway yes it can be usefull for debugging unexpected machine resumes. /proc/acpi/wakeup names are still _somehow_ human readable, so it is useful for debugging. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
