Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 16:29:37 -0700
From: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Suspend/resume without VT switches
Message-ID: <20121102162937.1ec88cf1@jbarnes-desktop>
In-Reply-To: <7608326.fQBj17U8Wv@vostro.rjw.lan>
References: <1351892621-4840-1-git-send-email-jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
	<7608326.fQBj17U8Wv@vostro.rjw.lan>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1201
Lines: 30

On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 22:51:07 +0100
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:

> On Friday, November 02, 2012 02:43:39 PM Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > I've lightly tested this with X and it definitely makes my
> > suspend/resume sequence a bit prettier.  It should speed things up
> > trivally as well, but most of those gains come from other changes to the
> > i915 driver (posted earlier to intel-gfx).
> > 
> > Any thoughts?
> 
> I like the idea.
> 
> > I suspect we'll have to be more defensive about the
> > resume configuration in case the BIOS did something weird, but overall I
> > think we should be able to do this one way or another.
> 
> Perhaps patch [1/2] should be [2/2] and vice versa? :-)

But then it wouldn't compile?  I added the variable first, defaulting
to the current behavior, then made i915 support it and set the variable
to false there...  At least, that's what I intended to do.

-- 
Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
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/