Hello,
I've noticed something strange with issuing 'standby' to the system:
when echoing "standby" to /sys/power/state, nothing happens, not even a log or
system activity to attempt standby mode.
However, trying echo "1" to /proc/acpi/sleep the system attempts to (standby)
and aborts:
[4295945.236000] PM: Preparing system for suspend
[4295946.270000] Stopping tasks:
=============================================================================|
[4295946.370000] Restarting tasks... done
We get no reason as to why it quickly aborts.
[4294672.065000] ACPI: CPU0 (power states: C1[C1] C2[C2] C3[C3])
[4294676.827000] ACPI: (supports S0 S3 S4 S5)
What is '1' in /proc/acpi/sleep? standby mode is not the same as suspend to
ram? when I put a normal desktop in standby mode its still 'on' but the hard
disk is put to sleep and the system runs in a lower power mode.
Shawn.
Hi!
> I've noticed something strange with issuing 'standby' to the system:
>
> when echoing "standby" to /sys/power/state, nothing happens, not even a log or
> system activity to attempt standby mode.
>
> However, trying echo "1" to /proc/acpi/sleep the system attempts to (standby)
> and aborts:
>
> [4295945.236000] PM: Preparing system for suspend
> [4295946.270000] Stopping tasks:
> =============================================================================|
> [4295946.370000] Restarting tasks... done
>
> We get no reason as to why it quickly aborts.
> [4294672.065000] ACPI: CPU0 (power states: C1[C1] C2[C2] C3[C3])
> [4294676.827000] ACPI: (supports S0 S3 S4 S5)
...aha, but your system does not support S1 aka standby.
> What is '1' in /proc/acpi/sleep? standby mode is not the same as suspend to
> ram? when I put a normal desktop in standby mode its still 'on' but the hard
> disk is put to sleep and the system runs in a lower power mode.
stanby != suspend to ram.
Pavel
--
64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=28 ttl=51 time=448769.1 ms
I'm working o
--- Pavel Machek <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > I've noticed something strange with issuing
> 'standby' to the system:
> >
> > when echoing "standby" to /sys/power/state,
> nothing happens, not even a log or
> > system activity to attempt standby mode.
> >
> > However, trying echo "1" to /proc/acpi/sleep the
> system attempts to (standby)
> > and aborts:
> >
> > [4295945.236000] PM: Preparing system for suspend
> > [4295946.270000] Stopping tasks:
> >
>
=============================================================================|
> > [4295946.370000] Restarting tasks... done
> >
> > We get no reason as to why it quickly aborts.
>
> > [4294672.065000] ACPI: CPU0 (power states: C1[C1]
> C2[C2] C3[C3])
> > [4294676.827000] ACPI: (supports S0 S3 S4 S5)
>
>
> ...aha, but your system does not support S1 aka
> standby.
>
Right, so nothing should happen if I try to do it, but
something does only in /proc/acpi/sleep does the
system attempt S1 which is not supported.
Do you know if /proc/acpi/sleep will be deprecated in
favour of /sys/power/state? If so, this thread will be
moot ;)
> > What is '1' in /proc/acpi/sleep? standby mode is
> not the same as suspend to
> > ram? when I put a normal desktop in standby mode
> its still 'on' but the hard
> > disk is put to sleep and the system runs in a
> lower power mode.
>
> stanby != suspend to ram.
Correct, I wanted to be sure.
>
> Pavel
> --
> 64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=28 ttl=51
> time=448769.1 ms
>
>
Hi!
> I'm working o
???
> > > [4294672.065000] ACPI: CPU0 (power states: C1[C1]
> > C2[C2] C3[C3])
> > > [4294676.827000] ACPI: (supports S0 S3 S4 S5)
> >
> >
> > ...aha, but your system does not support S1 aka
> > standby.
> >
>
> Right, so nothing should happen if I try to do it, but
> something does only in /proc/acpi/sleep does the
> system attempt S1 which is not supported.
Feel free to fix it :-).
> Do you know if /proc/acpi/sleep will be deprecated in
> favour of /sys/power/state? If so, this thread will be
> moot ;)
No idea, deprecating it would be ok with me.
Pavel
--
People were complaining that M$ turns users into beta-testers...
...jr ghea gurz vagb qrirybcref, naq gurl frrz gb yvxr vg gung jnl!
So nobody minds if I make this into a CONFIG option marked as Deprecated? :)
Shawn.
>
> > Do you know if /proc/acpi/sleep will be deprecated in
> > favour of /sys/power/state? If so, this thread will be
> > moot ;)
>
> No idea, deprecating it would be ok with me.
>
> Pavel
Hi!
> So nobody minds if I make this into a CONFIG option marked as Deprecated? :)
Actually it should probably go through
Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt
...and give it *long* timeout, since it is API change.
Pavel
--
People were complaining that M$ turns users into beta-testers...
...jr ghea gurz vagb qrirybcref, naq gurl frrz gb yvxr vg gung jnl!
Yeah, I can do that, I don't need angry programmers
chasing after me :-)
Shawn.
--- Pavel Machek <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > So nobody minds if I make this into a CONFIG
> option marked as Deprecated? :)
>
> Actually it should probably go through
>
> Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt
>
> ...and give it *long* timeout, since it is API
> change.
> Pavel
> --
> People were complaining that M$ turns users into
> beta-testers...
> ...jr ghea gurz vagb qrirybcref, naq gurl frrz gb
> yvxr vg gung jnl!
>
On Wednesday 06 April 2005 05:22 pm, Shawn Starr wrote:
> --- Pavel Machek <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > > So nobody minds if I make this into a CONFIG
> >
> > option marked as Deprecated? :)
> >
> > Actually it should probably go through
> >
> > Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt
> >
> > ...and give it *long* timeout, since it is API
> > change.
> > Pavel
Shouldn't all deprecated features be in feature-removal-schedule.txt?
There are four entries in feature-removal-schedule in 2.6.12-rc2, but
`find . -name "Kconfig" | xargs grep -i deprecated` finds eight entries. (And
there's more if the grep -i is for "obsolete" instead...)
Just wondering...
Rob
Well, of course. When I get around to figuring out the best way to do this.
Since I don't want to bloat up sysfs ACPI stuff just to check if the echoed
value is a number or string. We can just gradually phase it out by just
marking it DEPRECATED and keep it ON in the Kbuild file so nobody looses the
functionality until then.
I'm thinking 2 years but some say thats too long :)
Now that I look at it, I don't need to put it into a CONFIG option as its
already a module :-) even better.
Shawn.
On April 11, 2005 20:09, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Wednesday 06 April 2005 05:22 pm, Shawn Starr wrote:
> > --- Pavel Machek <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > > So nobody minds if I make this into a CONFIG
> > >
> > > option marked as Deprecated? :)
> > >
> > > Actually it should probably go through
> > >
> > > Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt
> > >
> > > ...and give it *long* timeout, since it is API
> > > change.
> > > Pavel
>
> Shouldn't all deprecated features be in feature-removal-schedule.txt?
>
> There are four entries in feature-removal-schedule in 2.6.12-rc2, but
> `find . -name "Kconfig" | xargs grep -i deprecated` finds eight entries.
> (And there's more if the grep -i is for "obsolete" instead...)
>
> Just wondering...
>
> Rob