Re: [2.5.50, ACPI] link error

[Pavel Machek <pavel@suse.cz>]

Hi!

> > > S3 support is a subset of what is need for S4 support. 
> > 
> > That's not true. acpi_wakeup.S is nasty piece of code, needed for S3
> > but not for S4. Big part of driver support is only needed for S3.
> 
> Ok, acpi_wakeup.S is only for S3.
> 
> As for drivers, I'm dubious of swsusp's handling of device and driver
> support. A suspend cycle is supposed to leave devices in the same state

Some devices do not really have a state (timer -- it needs to be set
to 1kHz, but that's it), and they do not need support for S4 but need
it for S3.

> > > The comment in the config option should tell the user that they 
> > > must choose a suspend implementation (e.g. CONFIG_SUSPEND, which should 
> > > prolly be CONFIG_SWAP_SUSPEND) in order to get complete S4 support. (The 
> > > ACPI side can make an empty call to swsusp if no implementation is 
> > > selected). 
> > 
> > S3 needs process stopper from kernel/suspend.c. I did not want to have
> > #ifdefs all over suspend.c...
> 
> Then break it up into separate files in a separate directory.

Uff, having kernel/suspend/freezer.c and kernel/suspend/disk.c would
seem very ugly to me, and freezer is pretty short in fact... I do not
think we want separate directory for suspend.

> > > Some time ago, I made a BK repo for suspend support. I axed it, since no 
> > > one ever used it. But, it's back again, and I'll be integrating your 
> > > patches and try to dedicate a few extra cycles to resolving some of the 
> > > issues. I'll send an announcement to the list once I've integrated your 
> > > patches. 
> > 
> > I probably will not persuade you to make it CVS, right? [Sorry, I'm
> > not going to touch bitkeeper.]
> 
> I know, and that's fine. I won't touch CVS again, unless there's a hefty 
> sum and a lot of good beer involved. (Or, after I've consumed a lot of 
> good beer). Patches can be made from the repo, most easily after merging 
> to a new kernel version.

:-) there should be some good beer around here ;-).

I'd like to keep it simple for now. I feel alone developing sleep on
2.5, and it is easier for me not to ave to test different
configurations. So I think ACPI_SLEEP requiring SOFTWARE_SUSPEND is
okay for now (code bloat is not too bad). If you are joining and will
work on ACPI_SLEEP && !SOFTWARE_SUSPEND, you can easily catch
non-compilations and similar mistakes, and it will be okay to separate
the two.

								Pavel
-- 
Casualities in World Trade Center: ~3k dead inside the building,
cryptography in U.S.A. and free speech in Czech Republic.