On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh<hmh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, 18 Jul 2009, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> Hm yeah, but I doubt someone will do that, generally we'd get one wake >> up event. Can't we just report the first one and ignore the rest? > > Well, I'd say keeping it simple is best, here. What if you ignore the more > interesting wakeup events by chance (and it is really up to userspace to > know what it considers interesting...)? IMHO, just issue as many > notifications as needed, let userspace filter it if it wants. > > But if you guys are talking about something really generic, shouldn't it > also provide the important "why" along with the "who"? > > Even for the most common cases, the "why" is useful: userspace may well want > to run special routines when it wakes up because of WoL and WoW (instead of > a key press, lid open or mouse movement...). > > When you factor in wakeups caused by platform alarms, well, the "why" > becomes even more interesting. We'd need a generic interface for keeping track of all possible wake-up-triggers. Should be easy with udev events. >> > What about simply reporting "wake event happened on this device" and >> > doing that for all the devices? >> >> That's fine too. Just think it would be nice to be more specific if possible. > > A generic way for a device (of any sort, not just network devices!) to > report that they just issued a system wakeup message, as well as the reason > it did that seems like a good way to do it to me. This should be easy to do via udev events. How about an generic platform registered, and udev events issues for wake-up-triggers, and also for wake-up-events, and leave all the sorting out to userspace? All we'd need in-kernel would be the trigger registration and event trigger notifications. Luis -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
