Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752576Ab1FYXHp (ORCPT ); Sat, 25 Jun 2011 19:07:45 -0400 Received: from swampdragon.chaosbits.net ([90.184.90.115]:19159 "EHLO swampdragon.chaosbits.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752126Ab1FYXHl (ORCPT ); Sat, 25 Jun 2011 19:07:41 -0400 Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 00:58:41 +0200 (CEST) From: Jesper Juhl To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" cc: Linux PM mailing list , Tejun Heo , Alan Stern , Greg KH , LKML , Magnus Damm , Kevin Hilman , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] PM / Runtime: Update documentation of interactions with system sleep In-Reply-To: <201106260055.09150.rjw@sisk.pl> Message-ID: References: <201106260054.20578.rjw@sisk.pl> <201106260055.09150.rjw@sisk.pl> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LNX 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1997 Lines: 47 On Sun, 26 Jun 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > From: Rafael J. Wysocki > A few tiny nit-picks.. > The documents describing the interactions between runtime PM and > system sleep generally refer to the model in which the system sleep > state is entered through a global firmware or hardware operation. > As a result, some recommendations given in there are not entirely > suitable for systems in which this is not the case. Update the > documentation take the existence of those systems into accout. > I believe this should read "... documentation to take the existence of those systems ..." <...> > > +On some systems, however, system sleep is not entered through a global firmware > +or hardware operation. Instead, all hardware components are put into low-power > +states directly by the kernel in a coordinated way. Then, the system sleep > +state effectively follows from the states the hardware components end up in > +and the system is woken up from that state by a hardware interrupt or a similar > +mechanism entirely under the kernel's control. As a result, the kernel never > +gives control away and the states of all devices during resume are precisely > +known to it. If that is the case and none of the situations listed above takes > +place (in particular, if the system is not waking up from hibernation), it may > +be more efficient to leave the devices that had been suspended before the system > +suspend began in the suspended state. > + You are refering to device*s*, so I believe this last bit should be "... in the suspended states". -- Jesper Juhl http://www.chaosbits.net/ Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/T/top-post.html Plain text mails only, please. -- 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/