From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 1/2] suspend: Move NVS save/restore code to generic suspend functionality Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 14:41:26 +0100 Message-ID: <20100611134126.GA542@srcf.ucam.org> References: <1275416390.3778.7.camel@maxim-laptop> <201006012331.59747.rjw@sisk.pl> <1275429125.5573.7.camel@maxim-laptop> <201006020040.22429.rjw@sisk.pl> <1275432410.6733.4.camel@maxim-laptop> <20100610135816.GG4514@ucw.cz> <20100610140911.GA11193@srcf.ucam.org> <20100611133219.GD28084@khazad-dum.debian.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:37532 "EHLO cavan.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760290Ab0FKNlh (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jun 2010 09:41:37 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100611133219.GD28084@khazad-dum.debian.net> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh Cc: Pavel Machek , Maxim Levitsky , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , linux-pm On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 10:32:19AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Thu, 10 Jun 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 03:58:16PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > Well... should we only do it in 'platform' hibernation mode? There are > > > machines that predate windows/acpi and still should hibernate. > > > > If they predate acpi then they won't declare any NVS regions. > > What if they're ACPI and APM capable, and in APM mode? Would the code need > to guard against that? I can't imagine any case where that would cause problems, but if it does then it's an easy fix. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org