From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [OLPC-devel] Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] ACPI: Idle Processor PM Improvements Date: 01 Sep 2006 23:52:14 +0200 Message-ID: References: <200608311713.21618.bjorn.helgaas@hp.com> <1157070616.7974.232.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200608312353.05337.len.brown@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from ns2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:6579 "EHLO mx2.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751045AbWIAVwn (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Sep 2006 17:52:43 -0400 In-Reply-To: <200608312353.05337.len.brown@intel.com> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Len Brown Cc: Bjorn Helgaas , Matthew Garrett , Linux Kernel ML , Dominik Brodowski , ACPI ML , Adam Belay , "Pallipadi, Venkatesh" , Arjan van de Ven , devel@laptop.org Len Brown writes: > > Re: optimizing suspend/resume speed > I expect suspend/resume speed has more to do with devices than with ACPI. > But frankly, with gaping functionality holes in Linux suspend/resume support such as > IDE and SATA, I think that optimizing for suspend/resume speed on a mainstream laptop > is somewhat "forward looking". What are these gaping holes? SATA seems to work at least on many drivers with an out of tree patch (that will hopefully be merged soon) And IDE mostly works too except for HPA on thinkpads (which can be disabled in the BIOS). While certainly not perfect it doesn't seem that bad to me. -Andi -- VGER BF report: H 0