From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bruno Ducrot Subject: Re: t41, suspend on ram, power consumption Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 11:50:01 +0100 Message-ID: <20060119105001.GE2154@poupinou.org> References: <20060113095634.GA7112@mnementh.homelinux.org> <20060113101638.12055.qmail@web81607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060117203732.GC24179@message-id.gmane0305.slipkontur.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from poup.poupinou.org ([195.101.94.96]:24081 "EHLO poup.poupinou.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161361AbWASKuF (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jan 2006 05:50:05 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060117203732.GC24179@message-id.gmane0305.slipkontur.de> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Stefan Seyfried Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 09:37:32PM +0100, Stefan Seyfried wrote: > > Additionally, you probably want to consider the suspend2 kernel patch > > series from http://www.suspend2.net/ to allow for reliably shutting the > > system off without losing state and storing memory into your swap > > partition or a file. > > Has nothing to do at all with suspend to ram and the power consumption > when suspended. I'm not sure you are right with that claim. There may be some code onto suspend2 patches that may help improve suspend/resume devices that are not yet merged to mainline. I don't think however this fill fix the thinkpad problem of the OP though. It's actually more or less a guess since I have not looked actually to the suspend2 code. -- Bruno Ducrot -- Which is worse: ignorance or apathy? -- Don't know. Don't care.