lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jan]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] PM / i915: Skip kernel VT switch during suspend/resume if KMS is used
Date
On Tuesday 26 January 2010, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Mon 2010-01-25 22:54:37, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday 25 January 2010, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > > > But in that case we should be able to disable the VT switch disable
> > > > > path; we just have to check each driver as it's loaded.
> > > >
> > > > OK, what the right sequence of checks would be in that case and where to place
> > > > them?
> > >
> > > Why are we even driving a vt switch direct from the suspend/resume
> > > logic ? The problem starts there. If it was being handled off the device
> > > suspend/resume method then there wouldn't be a mess to start with ?
> > >
> > > Start at the beginning
> > >
> > > - Why do we switch to arbitarily chosen 'last vt'
> > > - Why isn't vt related suspend/resume handled by the device
> >
> > Well, that was added long ago as a workaround for some problems people
> > reported (presumably). I've never looked at that before, so I can't really
> > tell why someone did it this particular way.
>
> As X drives hardware, it is/was neccessary to get control out of X and
> console switch was convenient.
>
> Note that it needs to happen with userland still active -- before
> freezer.

Well, that's a bit cumbersome.

> And yes, it should be per-driver these days.

That would have to be done using suspend notifiers and should depend on what
driver actually controls the screen at the moment. And I guess the only case
in which we actually _need_ to do the kernel VT switch is when the hardware
is controlled by X and without KMS.

Is there a simple way to determine if that's the case?

Rafael


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-01-26 19:49    [W:0.047 / U:36.320 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site