From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: Async suspend-resume patch w/ completions (was: Re: Async suspend-resume patch w/ rwsems) Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 00:53:45 +0100 Message-ID: <200912200053.45988.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <200912200040.18944.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:36137 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754503AbZLSXxA (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Dec 2009 18:53:00 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Dmitry Torokhov , Alan Stern , Zhang Rui , LKML , ACPI Devel Maling List , pm list On Sunday 20 December 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Sun, 20 Dec 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > OK, so this means we can just forget about suspending/resuming i8042 > > asynchronously, which is a pity, because that gave us some real suspend > > speedup on my test systems. > > No. What it means is that you shouldn't try to come up with these idiotic > scenarios just trying to make trouble for yourself, I haven't. I've just asked Dmitry for his opinion and got it. The fact that you don't like it doesn't mean it's actually "idiotic". > and using it as an excuse for crap. I'm not sure what you mean exactly, but whatever. > I suggest you try to treat the i8042 controller async, and see if it is > problematic. I already have and I don't see problems with it, but quite obviously I can't test all possible configurations out there. > If it isn't, don't do that then. But we actually have no real > reason to believe that it would be problematic, at least on a PC where the > actual logic is on the SB (presumably behind the LPC controller). > > Why would it be? The embedded controller may depend on it. Rafael