From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jesse Barnes Subject: Re: [RFC] Suspend/resume without VT switches Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 16:29:37 -0700 Message-ID: <20121102162937.1ec88cf1@jbarnes-desktop> References: <1351892621-4840-1-git-send-email-jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org> <7608326.fQBj17U8Wv@vostro.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <7608326.fQBj17U8Wv@vostro.rjw.lan> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 22:51:07 +0100 "Rafael J. Wysocki" wrote: > On Friday, November 02, 2012 02:43:39 PM Jesse Barnes wrote: > > I've lightly tested this with X and it definitely makes my > > suspend/resume sequence a bit prettier. It should speed things up > > trivally as well, but most of those gains come from other changes to the > > i915 driver (posted earlier to intel-gfx). > > > > Any thoughts? > > I like the idea. > > > I suspect we'll have to be more defensive about the > > resume configuration in case the BIOS did something weird, but overall I > > think we should be able to do this one way or another. > > Perhaps patch [1/2] should be [2/2] and vice versa? :-) But then it wouldn't compile? I added the variable first, defaulting to the current behavior, then made i915 support it and set the variable to false there... At least, that's what I intended to do. -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center