On Saturday 16 January 2010, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > > > I wasn't aware of this. > > > > > > > > That may be a good reason for adding kernel-based suspend notification, > > > > although I'd prefer ARM to notify the user space about the critical > > > > battery > > > > status allowing it to decide what to do. > > > > > > Hard to do, without breaking compatibility that goes down to 2.4.X. > > > > Sending a battery-critical notification to the user space is not equivalent > > to > > removing the existing kernel-based mechanism. They can exist both at the > > same time if the notification is sent earlier than the kernel suspends > > everything. > > Yes, and obviously sending notification early is ok with me. > > > > It really makes sense on zaurus. Those machines are simple, no > > > smartbattery and no embedded controller subsystems. Battery will not > > > protect itself, and its kernel job. (Should work on init=/bin/bash). > > > > > > As power-off consumption is same as suspend power consumption (I > > > beleive zaurus simply does not have true power off), suspend on > > > critical makes some sense. (Note that it is set lower than on pcs, and > > > that we declare battery critical sooner than that.) > > > > The problem with that is it catches at least some applications unprepared > > and > > notifying them that "we're suspending right now" doesn't really help, > > because > > they won't have any time to react anyway. > > Agreed, but so what? On PC, machine would power off at that > point. That would surprise the apps, too. > > Basically new enough userland should not make battery run low enough > for either emergency power off or emergency suspend.
I wonder how it is supposed to achieve that without knowing the current battery status. Do you mean it should poll the battery driver? Rafael _______________________________________________ Zaurus-devel mailing list Zaurusemail@example.com http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/zaurus-devel