Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 6 Dec 2002 01:31:01 +0100 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: [2.5.50, ACPI] link error |
| |
Hi!
> > > S3 support is a subset of what is need for S4 support. > > > > That's not true. acpi_wakeup.S is nasty piece of code, needed for S3 > > but not for S4. Big part of driver support is only needed for S3. > > Ok, acpi_wakeup.S is only for S3. > > As for drivers, I'm dubious of swsusp's handling of device and driver > support. A suspend cycle is supposed to leave devices in the same state
Some devices do not really have a state (timer -- it needs to be set to 1kHz, but that's it), and they do not need support for S4 but need it for S3.
> > > The comment in the config option should tell the user that they > > > must choose a suspend implementation (e.g. CONFIG_SUSPEND, which should > > > prolly be CONFIG_SWAP_SUSPEND) in order to get complete S4 support. (The > > > ACPI side can make an empty call to swsusp if no implementation is > > > selected). > > > > S3 needs process stopper from kernel/suspend.c. I did not want to have > > #ifdefs all over suspend.c... > > Then break it up into separate files in a separate directory.
Uff, having kernel/suspend/freezer.c and kernel/suspend/disk.c would seem very ugly to me, and freezer is pretty short in fact... I do not think we want separate directory for suspend.
> > > Some time ago, I made a BK repo for suspend support. I axed it, since no > > > one ever used it. But, it's back again, and I'll be integrating your > > > patches and try to dedicate a few extra cycles to resolving some of the > > > issues. I'll send an announcement to the list once I've integrated your > > > patches. > > > > I probably will not persuade you to make it CVS, right? [Sorry, I'm > > not going to touch bitkeeper.] > > I know, and that's fine. I won't touch CVS again, unless there's a hefty > sum and a lot of good beer involved. (Or, after I've consumed a lot of > good beer). Patches can be made from the repo, most easily after merging > to a new kernel version.
:-) there should be some good beer around here ;-).
I'd like to keep it simple for now. I feel alone developing sleep on 2.5, and it is easier for me not to ave to test different configurations. So I think ACPI_SLEEP requiring SOFTWARE_SUSPEND is okay for now (code bloat is not too bad). If you are joining and will work on ACPI_SLEEP && !SOFTWARE_SUSPEND, you can easily catch non-compilations and similar mistakes, and it will be okay to separate the two.
Pavel -- Casualities in World Trade Center: ~3k dead inside the building, cryptography in U.S.A. and free speech in Czech Republic. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |