Hi! > > The existence of the power/state interface wasn't a bug - it was a > > deliberate decision to add it. It's the only reason the > > dpm_runtime_suspend() interface exists.
Actually, if we noticed power/state during PM framework review, it would have been killed. It is just way too ugly. > > > In contrast, the /sys/devices/.../power/state API has never had many > > > users beyond developers trying to test their drivers (without taking > > > the whole system into a low power state, which probably didn't work > > > in any case), and has *always* been problematic. And the change you > > > object to doesn't "break" anything fundamental, either. Everything > > > still works. > > > > It's used on every Ubuntu and Suse system, > > Odd how the relevant Suse developers didn't mention any issues with > those files going away, any of the times problems with them were > discussed on the PM list. Also, I have a Suse system that doesn't > use those files for anything ... maybe only newer release use it. Not on *every* suse system. power/state is known to oops kernels, so it is only enabled when user explicitely asks for 'dangerous aggresive experimental power saving' or something like that. -- Thanks for all the (sleeping) penguins. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
