From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753052AbXBJEfe (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Feb 2007 23:35:34 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753042AbXBJEfe (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Feb 2007 23:35:34 -0500 Received: from ms-smtp-06.ohiordc.rr.com ([65.24.5.140]:52710 "EHLO ms-smtp-06.ohiordc.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752691AbXBJEfd (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Feb 2007 23:35:33 -0500 Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 23:35:15 -0500 To: Lee Revell Cc: Robert Hancock , linux-kernel , Jeff Garzik , nigel@nigel.suspend2.net Subject: Re: NAK new drivers without proper power management? Message-ID: <20070210043514.GA29679@nineveh.rivenstone.net> Mail-Followup-To: Lee Revell , Robert Hancock , linux-kernel , Jeff Garzik , nigel@nigel.suspend2.net References: <45CD24F6.8090107@shaw.ca> <75b66ecd0702091759q4140680atee2e80f7ca26af03@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <75b66ecd0702091759q4140680atee2e80f7ca26af03@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.12-2006-07-14 From: jhf@columbus.rr.com (Joseph Fannin) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 08:59:55PM -0500, Lee Revell wrote: > On 2/9/07, Robert Hancock wrote: > >I would disagree that it's a peripheral issue, it's pretty core these > >days, at least for any hardware that you can stuff in a laptop (though a > >fair number of desktops get suspended and resumed these days too). > > Servers are still the most important Linux market, and don't care > about suspend/resume. I would consider implementing suspend./resume > for a driver that will only be used in server or HPC class hardware a > waste of valuable development resources. Please allow me to be offensively blunt for a moment. So, the situation seems to be: 1. The work of the suspend developer who engages the users who put effort into making suspend work on their hardware (bless their addled little heads) often doesn't meet kernel standards, or isn't well enough documented to prove the real *need* for the features and/or hacks that have happened to get actual users' systems sleeping and running again. 2. The swsusp maintainer continues in the belief that as long as their are no bug reports in kernel bugzilla or crossing the (relatively obscure) swsusp mailing lists, it has zarro boogs and meanwhile works on the fourth implementation of suspend support in as many years. It's in CVS on sourceforge. There's no documentation whatsoever. 3. There's another guy who appears to be doing a lot of work, so I shan't leave him out. Like the two developers previously mentioned, he seems to be working pretty hard on the whole thing. The previously mentioned fourth suspend implementation seems to be largely his doing, for good and for ill. 4. "Everybody" knows suspend doesn't work on Linux without a huge amount of tinkering, deep magic, and dead chickens. Only Gentoo users seem to bother; everyone else waits for Ubuntu 12.04 wherein suspend will "just work". The Gentoo users all use swsusp2, as it contains the hacks to work around: 5. All the suspend developers blame the lack of power-management support in drivers for the inablility of Linux to properly suspend on anything that doesn't support APM. 6. Getting proper power-management support in Linux device drivers is not a priority; drivers without any power management support whatsoever should not only be accepted -- they should be merged without comment or complaint. How is working suspend support ever supposed to happen? -- Joseph Fannin jfannin@gmail.com || jhf@columbus.rr.com