On Thursday 28 December 2006 5:31 am, Alan wrote:
> > Seems to me anyone really desperate to put PCI devices into a low
> > power mode, without driver support at the "ifdown" level, would be
> > able just "rmmod driver; setpci".
>
> Incorrect for very obvious reasons - there may be two devices d
On Thu, 2006-12-28 at 13:31 +, Alan wrote:
> > Seems to me anyone really desperate to put PCI devices into a low
> > power mode, without driver support at the "ifdown" level, would be
> > able just "rmmod driver; setpci".
>
> Incorrect for very obvious reasons - there may be two devices driv
> Seems to me anyone really desperate to put PCI devices into a low
> power mode, without driver support at the "ifdown" level, would be
> able just "rmmod driver; setpci".
Incorrect for very obvious reasons - there may be two devices driven by
the same driver one up and one down.
Alan
-
To uns
On Friday 22 December 2006 1:09 pm, Pavel Machek wrote:
> 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 t
Hi!
> > That's a workable approach to resolving the underlying problem in the
> > long term. In the short term, notice the system still works correctly
> > if you don't try writing those files.
>
> Well, except I'm now burning an extra couple of watts of power. I
> consider that pretty broken.
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.
> Seriously. How many pieces of userspace-visible functionality have
> recently been removed without there being any sort of alternative?
There IS an alternative, you're using it for networking:
You *down the interface*.
If there's a NIC that doesn't support that let us (or preferably netdev)
On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 09:34:17PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> I would be very interested to see any newer SuSE programs using that
> interface. Just point them out to me and I'll quickly fix them.
As far as I can tell, powersaved still uses these.. I'm not quite sure
how you can fix it without jus
On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 09:14:49PM -0800, David Brownell wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 December 2006 8:26 pm, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 07:59:42PM -0800, David Brownell wrote:
> > It's perfectly reasonable to
> > refer to it as a flawed interface, or perhaps even a buggy one. Bu
On Tuesday 19 December 2006 8:26 pm, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 07:59:42PM -0800, David Brownell wrote:
> 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.
On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 07:59:42PM -0800, David Brownell wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 December 2006 4:25 pm, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > 1) feature-removal-schedule.txt says that it'll be removed in July 2007.
> > This isn't July 2007.
>
> Which is why the functionality is still there.
Merely broken in
On Tuesday 19 December 2006 7:43 pm, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Do you have an alternate solution?
>
> How about something like this? Entirely untested, but I think it shows
> the basic idea.
Other than indentation/whitespace bugs, it seems to encapsulate the
layering violation needed to get th
On Tuesday 19 December 2006 4:25 pm, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 01:34:49PM -0800, David Brownell wrote:
>
> > Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt has warned about this since
> > August, and the PM list has discussed how broken that model is numerous
> > times over the
On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 07:19:36PM -0800, David Brownell wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 December 2006 4:09 pm, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > I'm sorry, which bit of "Don't break userspace API without adequate
> > prior warning and with a workable replacement" is difficult to
> > understand?
>
> What part o
On Tuesday 19 December 2006 4:09 pm, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 03:36:28PM -0800, David Brownell wrote:
> > On Tuesday 19 December 2006 2:57 pm, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > The fact that something is scheduled to be removed in July 2007 does
> > > *not* mean it's acceptable
On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 03:36:28PM -0800, David Brownell wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 December 2006 2:57 pm, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > The fact that something is scheduled to be removed in July 2007 does
> > *not* mean it's acceptable to break it in 2006. We need to find a way to
> > fix this function
On Tuesday 19 December 2006 2:57 pm, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 01:22:12PM -0800, David Brownell wrote:
> > As a generic mechanism, that interface has *ALWAYS* been "broken
> > by design"; I'd call it unfixable. It's deprecated, and scheduled
> > to vanish; see Documentation
17 matches
Mail list logo
