From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757742AbXGDXK1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Jul 2007 19:10:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753632AbXGDXKS (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Jul 2007 19:10:18 -0400 Received: from nigel.suspend2.net ([203.171.70.205]:33309 "EHLO nigel.suspend2.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753143AbXGDXKQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Jul 2007 19:10:16 -0400 From: Nigel Cunningham To: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [PATCH] Optional Beeping During Resume From Suspend To Ram. Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 09:10:21 +1000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 Cc: nigel@suspend2.net, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , LKML , Andrew Morton References: <200706192118.23706.nigel@nigel.suspend2.net> <200707050856.25570.nigel@nigel.suspend2.net> <20070704230109.GA1770@elf.ucw.cz> In-Reply-To: <20070704230109.GA1770@elf.ucw.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart2383802.mWUiYE0UgM"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200707050910.21852.nigel@nigel.suspend2.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --nextPart2383802.mWUiYE0UgM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="cp 850" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Hi. On Thursday 05 July 2007 09:01:09 Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! >=20 > > > > > @@ -80,9 +82,11 @@ static int __init acpi_sleep_setup(char=20 > > > > > =20 > > > > > __setup("acpi_sleep=3D", acpi_sleep_setup); > > > > > =20 > > > > > +/* Ouch, we want to delete this. We already have better version = in=20 > > > > userspace, in=20 > > > > > + s2ram from suspend.sf.net project */ > > > >=20 > > > > Do we? This version has advantages in not requiring any userspace a= pp=20 and=20 > > in=20 > > > > being able to work even if you can't yet get as far as having > > >=20 > > > Take a look at the file. It has whitelist with just one entry, too > > > bad. > >=20 > > The contents of the whitelist are irrelevant. My laptop needs this=20 > > functionality, but I haven't bothered to send you a whitelist entry, in= =20 part=20 > > because I don't use s2ram. > >=20 > > Regardless of that, if you had read the whole comment (you've deleted h= alf=20 of=20 > > it), you would have noticed that I ended up changing my mind and instea= d=20 > > saying "Why not just delete the __setup now, or at least put it in the= =20 > > deprecated file?" >=20 > That should be certainly done in separate patch, right? It is on my > todolist somewhere now. Yeah, agree. > > > > > @@ -124,7 +124,7 @@ real_save_cr3: .long 0 > > > > > real_save_cr4: .long 0 > > > > > real_magic: .long 0 > > > > > video_mode: .long 0 > > > > > -video_flags: .long 0 > > > > > +realmode_flags: .long 0 > > > > > beep_flags: .long 0 > > > > > real_efer_save_restore: .long 0 > > > > > real_save_efer_edx: .long 0 > > > >=20 > > > > Beep_flags should be removed too if you're sticking with /proc. > > >=20 > > > Fixed. > >=20 > > Ta. But you didn't answer the question - why /proc and not sysfs? >=20 > Do you seriously advocate setting two bits of one variable from /proc, > and one more bit from /sys? That's partly why I had a separate variable - retaining proc only because i= t's=20 existing functionality, using sysfs for the new code. Remember, too, that=20 they're really distinct functionality. The only thing they share is that=20 they're both used in real mode. Regards, Nigel =2D-=20 Nigel, Michelle and Alisdair Cunningham 5 Mitchell Street Cobden 3266 Victoria, Australia --nextPart2383802.mWUiYE0UgM Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBGjCjdN0y+n1M3mo0RArmIAJoDPnCUDDqJXtFWfOZGzE2OIkCOLgCeI/ff csL7gfsH6aOUMKCr2P5gcmQ= =Y8k7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart2383802.mWUiYE0UgM--