On Monday, 25 June 2007 02:10, David Brownell wrote:
> On Saturday 23 June 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Saturday, 23 June 2007 03:32, Alan Stern wrote:
>
> > > A good way to identify a sleep state would be a pointer to a string
> > > containing the state's name. The PM core could use these pointers to
> > > export the states in sysfs.
> >
> > Well, I thought of exactly the same thing.
>
> There's an echo in the room ...
>
>
> > Perhaps we can generalize it a bit by defining:
> >
> > struct pm_sleep_state {
> > char *name;
> > };
>
> I suppose having the core use only the name would be a bit radical;
> but on the other hand, I really like the resulting notion that the
> generic code must accordingly know *NOTHING* about the semantics
> of any such states. Having a struct sort of begs that it someday
> be expanded.
Still, so to speak, the struct is self-commenting (to some extent), and the
'bare' string might be confusing in some contexts.
> > and make the platforms give us a NULL-terminated array of such things during
> > the initializatiion.
>
> And conceptually "typedef struct pm_sleep_state *suspend_state_t;"?
More or less.
> Though eventually "suspend_state_t" should vanish.
Well ...
Greetings,
Rafael
--
"Premature optimization is the root of all evil." - Donald Knuth
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
