Hi! > > > > 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. No, I don't think it is similar to pm_test. pm_test is debug-only, and orthogonal to state -- all combinations make sense. With 'oportunistic > policy', state changes from blocking to nonblocking (surprise!). Plus, it is not orthogonal: (assume we added s-t-flash on android for powersaving... or imagine I get oportunistic suspend working on PC --I was there with limited config on x60). policy: oportunistic forced state: on mem disk First disadvantage of proposed interface is that while 'opportunistic mem' is active, I can't do 'forced disk' to save bit more power. Next, not all combinations make sense. oportunistic on == forced <nothing> oportunistic disk -- probably something that will not be implemented any time soon. oportunistic mem -- makes sense. forced on -- NOP forced mem -- makes sense. forced disk -- makes sense. So we have matrix of 7 possibilities, but only 4 make sense... IMO its confusing. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
