From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754052AbZGRX4S (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 Jul 2009 19:56:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753970AbZGRX4S (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 Jul 2009 19:56:18 -0400 Received: from out1.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]:45090 "EHLO out1.smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751272AbZGRX4R (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 Jul 2009 19:56:17 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: m5kdKi9PYy7WvqEb2oV4Cx3EQOIqoQ5TlsDUWyo8emIK 1247961376 Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 20:56:10 -0300 From: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Cc: Pavel Machek , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Johannes Berg , "John W. Linville" , Jouni Malinen , linux-wireless , Stephen Chen Subject: Re: Generic events for wake up from S1-S4 Message-ID: <20090718235609.GC25343@khazad-dum.debian.net> References: <43e72e890907141511h70a0a987g57cb26e23e5824a9@mail.gmail.com> <20090714235332.GA1552@ucw.cz> <43e72e890907150851m69cd2de6lfb71596fbfac30e6@mail.gmail.com> <43e72e890907151100j37feb30av7281d09960ca5db2@mail.gmail.com> <20090718103756.GA11381@elf.ucw.cz> <43e72e890907181302j600506d5oc208167206c44745@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <43e72e890907181302j600506d5oc208167206c44745@mail.gmail.com> X-GPG-Fingerprint: 1024D/1CDB0FE3 5422 5C61 F6B7 06FB 7E04 3738 EE25 DE3F 1CDB 0FE3 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. > > 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. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh