Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 21:27:20 +0000
From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
Cc: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>, Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
       LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       pm list <linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
       dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Eric Anholt <eric@anholt.net>,
       airlied@linux.ie
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM / i915: Skip kernel VT switch during suspend/resume
 if KMS is used
Message-ID: <20100125212720.7d3af280@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <201001252217.39778.rjw@sisk.pl>
References: <201001240055.59479.rjw@sisk.pl>
	<20100125184350.0fbad233@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
	<20100125104938.6b34d61c@jbarnes-piketon>
	<201001252217.39778.rjw@sisk.pl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 819
Lines: 21

> > 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

Alan
--
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/