Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760036AbYGAPOa (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Jul 2008 11:14:30 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755993AbYGAPOW (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Jul 2008 11:14:22 -0400 Received: from mail164.messagelabs.com ([216.82.253.131]:42533 "EHLO mail164.messagelabs.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755833AbYGAPOV (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Jul 2008 11:14:21 -0400 X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: Uwe.Kleine-Koenig@digi.com X-Msg-Ref: server-9.tower-164.messagelabs.com!1214925259!20868972!1 X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [66.77.174.14] Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 17:14:15 +0200 From: Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" CC: Andrew Morton , David Brownell , Linus Torvalds , Pavel Machek , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: A minimally power-aware driver treats all messages as SUSPEND? Message-ID: <20080701151415.GA17688@digi.com> References: <20080701072911.GA6564@digi.com> <200807011617.55501.rjw@sisk.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <200807011617.55501.rjw@sisk.pl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Jul 2008 15:14:16.0714 (UTC) FILETIME=[20CB86A0:01C8DB8D] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1495 Lines: 37 Hello Rafael, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday, 1 of July 2008, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote: > > include/linux/pm.h claims: > > > > A minimally power-aware driver treats all messages as SUSPEND > > [...]. > > > > This was introduced in commit 82bb67f2 by David Brownell. At this time > > PM_EVENT_HIBERNATE didn't exist. This was added in 3a2d5b70 by Rafael > > J. Wysocki without updating the above sentence. I think a minimally > > power-aware driver should treat all messages as HIBERNATE, shouldn't it? > > No, I don't think so. In the majority of cases, SUSPEND is equivalent to the > combination of FREEZE and HIBERNATE. I didn't get that. I thought SUSPEND is suspend-to-ram and HIBERNATE is suspend-to-disk, so HIBERNATE is the "deeper sleep". With that I might have to do less on SUSPEND because some state might be preserved after the machine comes up again. > Still, this is going to change anyway with the introduction of the new > suspend/hibernation callbacks that are scheduled for 2.6.27. in next? Best regards Uwe -- Uwe Kleine-K?nig, Software Engineer Digi International GmbH Branch Breisach, K?ferstrasse 8, 79206 Breisach, Germany Tax: 315/5781/0242 / VAT: DE153662976 / Reg. Amtsgericht Dortmund HRB 13962 -- 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/