On Sun 2007-01-07 19:31:19, David Brownell wrote:
> On Saturday 06 January 2007 9:54 pm, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 06, 2007 at 02:21:41PM -0800, David Brownell wrote:
> >
> > > Please tell me you mean "devices with a /sys/devices/.../power/wakeup"
> > > attribute. And that ACPI is finally going to start working with those
> > > attributes ...
> >
> > It's not necessarily possible to map from an ACPI object with a wakeup
> > capability to a Linux device,
>
> That seems singularly useless then. If there's no such mapping, there's
> really no point to the /proc/acpi/wakeup table... why not just always
> enable every possible device as a wakeup source, since that information
> is evidently not designed to be usable for anything?
If that's the case, please keep the interface in /proc. One useless
interface is bad... two of them ... :-).
Anyway yes it can be usefull for debugging unexpected machine
resumes. /proc/acpi/wakeup names are still _somehow_ human readable,
so it is useful for debugging.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures)
http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
