On Fri, 21 May 2010 00:18:43 +0200 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Actually, what would be a better interface? > > > > > > I wonder why it is not like this: > > Because I think the "forced" and "opportunistic" suspend "modes" are mutually > exclusive in practice and the interface as proposed reflects that quite well. > > > > /sys/power/state > > > no change, works with and without opportunistic suspend the > > > same. Ignores suspend blockers. Really no change. (From user > > > perspective) > > > > > > /sys/power/opportunistic > > > On / Off > > > While Off the opportunistic suspend is off. > > > While On, the opportunistic suspend is on and if there are no > > > suspend blockers the system goes to suspend. > > > > > > > I forgot, of course there needs to be another knob to implement the > > "on" behaviour in the opportunistic mode > > > > /sys/power/block_opportunistic_suspend > > > > There you have it. One file, one purpose. > > That's getting messy IMHO. > > In addition to that you get a nice race when the user writes "mem" > to /sys/power/state and opportunistic suspend happens at the same time. > If the latter wins the race, the system will suspend again immediately after > being woken up, which probably is not the result you'd like to get. But I don't think there is a problem with that. If the system is 'awake' (suspend blocked) and you hit it with forced 'mem', the system _has_ to suspend. as that is what forced "mem" means. And if opportunistic won the race you would _expect_ the machine to suspend again after the wakeup (and this time for good). But perhaps this only makes sense if you can specify different wake-events for opportunistic and forced suspend. This is probably some kind of bikeshed by now. I'm alright with the status quo. For what it's worth (not much): You can add my Reviewed-By. Cheers, Flo _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
