On Sunday 02 May 2010, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Sun 2010-05-02 22:10:53, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Sunday 02 May 2010, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > Hi! > > > > > > > Adds /sys/power/policy that selects the behaviour of /sys/power/state. > > > > After setting the policy to opportunistic, writes to /sys/power/state > > > > become non-blocking requests that specify which suspend state to enter > > > > when no suspend blockers are active. A special state, "on", stops the > > > > process by activating the "main" suspend blocker. > > > > > > As I explained before (and got no reply), the proposed interface is > > > ugly. It uses one sysfs file to change semantics of another one. > > > > In fact this behavior was discussed at the LF Collab Summit and no one > > involved had any problem with that. > > Well, I explained why I disliked in previous mail in more details, We do exactly the same thing with 'pm_test', so I'm not sure what the problem is. > and neither you nor Arve explained why it is good solution. Because it's less confusing. Having two different attributes returning almost the same contents and working in a slightly different way wouldn't be too clean IMO. Also it reduces code duplication slightly. > I was not on LF Collab summit, so unfortunately I can't comment on that. > > > > > Signed-off-by: Arve Hj??nnev??g <arve@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > NAK. > > > > Ignored. > > WTF? Literally. I'm not going to take that NAK into consideration. Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
