mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ducrot Bruno <poup@poupinou.org>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@suse.cz>
Cc: Ducrot Bruno <ducrot@poupinou.org>,
	Patrick Mochel <mochel@osdl.org>,
	kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	ACPI mailing list <acpi-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [ACPI] Re: [2.5.50, ACPI] link error
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 11:28:58 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20021209102858.GA14882@poup.poupinou.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20021208194944.GB19604@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>

Hi Pavel:

On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 08:49:45PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> > > > > > Doesn't that imply your fix is broken to begin with?
> > > > > 
> > > > > ACPI/S4 support needs swsusp. ACPI/S3 needs big part of
> > > > > swsusp. Splitting CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP to S3 and S4 part seems like
> > > > > overdesign to me, OTOH if you do the work it is okay with me.
> > > > 
> > > > You broke the design. S3 support was developed long before swsusp was in 
> > > > the kernel, and completely indpendent of it. It should have remained that 
> > > > way. 
> > > > 
> > > > 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.
> > > 
> > > > swsusp is an implementation of S4 support. In theory, there could be 
> > > > multiple implementations that all use the same core (saving/restoring 
> > > > state). 
> > > 
> > > There were patches for S4bios floating around, but it never really
> > > worked, IIRC.
> > 
> > No.  It work.  I do not resubmmited patches because I think that
> > swsusp is better.
> 
> I think that s4bios is nice to have. Its similar to S3 and easier to
> set up than swsusp... It would be nice to have it.

for me:
pros:
-----
1- it is really really more easier to implement than S4;
2- we can even have it with 2.4 kernels (it seems that it work without
the need of freezing processes, but I suspect that this statement
is 'wrong' by nature).

cons:
-----
1- it is much slower (especially at save time) than your swsusp;
2- end users must setup their systems (need to create a suspend partition,
or to keep a vfat partition as the really first one (/dev/hda1));
3- we use a bios function.  Actually, everything can happen...

That why I prefer swsusp at this time, or any other implementation of S4 (I
think about an implementation of S4 via LKCD).

Cheers,

-- 
Ducrot Bruno
http://www.poupinou.org        Page profaissionelle
http://toto.tu-me-saoules.com  Haume page

  parent reply	other threads:[~2002-12-09 10:21 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2002-12-02 20:24 Jochen Hein
2002-12-03 18:07 ` Eric Altendorf
2002-12-03 18:35   ` Jochen Hein
2002-12-03 20:47     ` Eric Altendorf
2002-12-05 17:31       ` Pavel Machek
2002-12-05 22:21         ` Jeff Garzik
2002-12-05 22:24           ` Pavel Machek
2002-12-05 22:27             ` Jeff Garzik
2002-12-05 22:33               ` Pavel Machek
2002-12-05 22:38                 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-12-05 22:40                   ` Pavel Machek
2002-12-05 22:43                     ` Patrick Mochel
2002-12-06  0:06                       ` Pavel Machek
2002-12-06  0:05                         ` Patrick Mochel
2002-12-06  0:31                           ` Pavel Machek
2002-12-06  0:36                         ` Jeff Garzik
2002-12-06 18:57                         ` [ACPI] " Ducrot Bruno
2002-12-06 23:05                           ` Ducrot Bruno
2002-12-08 19:49                           ` Pavel Machek
2002-12-08 20:46                             ` Constantinos Antoniou
2002-12-09 10:40                               ` Ducrot Bruno
2002-12-09 10:28                             ` Ducrot Bruno [this message]
2002-12-09 11:01                               ` Pavel Machek
2002-12-09 17:42                                 ` Ducrot Bruno
2002-12-07 14:02               ` David Ford
2002-12-07  5:50         ` Eric Altendorf
2002-12-09  7:29           ` Pavel Machek
2002-12-16  3:40             ` Eric Altendorf
2002-12-16 11:16               ` Pavel Machek
2002-12-04 11:41 ` Pavel Machek
2002-12-04 13:50   ` Adrian Bunk
2002-12-04 19:16     ` Jochen Hein
2002-12-04 20:29     ` Roman Zippel
2002-12-09 19:12 [ACPI] " Grover, Andrew
2002-12-10  0:49 ` Alan Cox
2002-12-10 20:40   ` Pavel Machek
2002-12-10 20:50     ` Andrew McGregor
2002-12-11 10:14       ` Ducrot Bruno
2002-12-11 16:00         ` Alan Cox
2002-12-11 10:07     ` Ducrot Bruno

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20021209102858.GA14882@poup.poupinou.org \
    --to=poup@poupinou.org \
    --cc=acpi-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
    --cc=ducrot@poupinou.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mochel@osdl.org \
    --cc=pavel@suse.cz \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®