From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S267362AbUG1XmC (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Jul 2004 19:42:02 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S267351AbUG1Xly (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Jul 2004 19:41:54 -0400 Received: from gprs214-195.eurotel.cz ([160.218.214.195]:39040 "EHLO amd.ucw.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S267327AbUG1Xjr (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Jul 2004 19:39:47 -0400 Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 01:39:29 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: Andrew Morton Cc: mochel@digitalimplant.org, akpm@zip.com.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: -mm swsusp: do not default to platform/firmware Message-ID: <20040728233929.GD16494@elf.ucw.cz> References: <20040728222445.GA18210@elf.ucw.cz> <20040728161448.336183e2.akpm@osdl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040728161448.336183e2.akpm@osdl.org> X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi! > > -mm swsusp now defaults to platform/firmware suspend... That's > > certainly unexpected, changes behaviour from previous version, and > > only works on one of three machines I have here. I'd like the default > > to be changed back. > > You overestimate my knowledge of suspend stuff. AFAICT the current -mm > default is to enter ACPI sleep state via the BIOS rather than via Linux's > ACPI driver. Correct? Its actually bit more complex. There are 3 methods: shutdown: save state in linux, then tell bios to powerdown platform: save state in linux, then tell bios to powerdown and blink "suspended led" firmware: tell bios to save state itself "platform" is actually right thing to do, but "shutdown" is most reliable. Old code always did "shutdown". New code does "shutdown", "platform" or "firmware" depending on what BIOS can do. > If not, then what? > > If so, then why do we feel this change is needed, and why did Pat change things? > > My major concern here is that Pat may have made that change to get suitable > coverage testing for new code paths, and we wouldn't want to undo that right away. I believe "platform" is so unreliable (for now) that it blocks usefull testing... I'd like it to default to "shutdown" when it is merged upstream. Pavel -- People were complaining that M$ turns users into beta-testers... ...jr ghea gurz vagb qrirybcref, naq gurl frrz gb yvxr vg gung jnl!