From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexey Starikovskiy Subject: Re: Suspend code ordering (again) Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 18:24:06 +0300 Message-ID: <47727216.4050003@gmail.com> References: <200712231419.40207.carlos@strangeworlds.co.uk> <200712251713.13223.rjw@sisk.pl> <200712261607.18429.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200712261607.18429.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Linus Torvalds , Carlos Corbacho , "H. Peter Anvin" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Greg KH , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , Len Brown , Andrew Morton , pm list , ACPI Devel Maling List List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wednesday, 26 of December 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote: > >> On Tue, 25 Dec 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> >>> the ACPI specification between versions 1.0x and 2.0. Namely, while ACPI >>> 2.0 and later wants us to put devices into low power states before calling >>> _PTS, ACPI 1.0x wants us to do that after calling _PTS. Since we're following >>> the 2.0 and later specifications right now, we're not doing the right thing for >>> the (strictly) ACPI 1.0x-compliant systems. >>> >>> We ought to be able to fix things on the high level, by calling _PTS earlier on >>> systems that claim to be ACPI 1.0x-compliant. That will require us to modify >>> the generic susped code quite a bit and will need to be tested for some time. >>> >> That's insane. Are you really saying that ACPI wants totally different >> orderings for different versions of the spec? >> > > Yes, I am. > > >> And does Windows really do that? >> > > I don't know. > Windows was compliant only with 1.x spec until Vista. With Vista claims are 3.x compliance.