From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI: suspend: don't let device _PS3 failure prevent suspend Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 03:01:48 +0100 Message-ID: <20090512020147.GA24896@srcf.ucam.org> References: <4A073D92.5060904@gmx.net> <1242009782.3773.139.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200905111721.10166.rjw@sisk.pl> <1242089305.3773.198.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:34020 "EHLO vavatch.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756652AbZELCCY (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 May 2009 22:02:24 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1242089305.3773.198.camel@localhost.localdomain> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: yakui_zhao Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Witold Szczeponik , Henrique de Moraes Holschuh , Len Brown , Bjorn Helgaas , "cedric@belbone.be" , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 08:48:25AM +0800, yakui_zhao wrote: > In such case the power state check will be skipped in course of power > transition. > > Is this OK? What's the real-world benefit to throwing an error in this case? What is the user or software supposed to do with it? -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org