From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Subject: Re: Paravirtualizing bits of acpi access Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 21:26:00 -0700 Message-ID: <49C5BDD8.1050605@goop.org> References: <49C484B7.20100@goop.org> <200903211810.53990.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from gw.goop.org ([64.81.55.164]:51661 "EHLO mail.goop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750958AbZCVE0F (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Mar 2009 00:26:05 -0400 In-Reply-To: <200903211810.53990.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: "Brown, Len" , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Xen-devel , the arch/x86 maintainers Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Well, why don't you implement the platform suspend operations for Xen? > I guess you don't want ACPI _PTS to be executed during suspend as well. > I don't know. What's _PTS? I think for the most part we want Linux to do most of the acpi work of bringing the machine into an idle state. Its just that Xen is responsible for the very low level cpu context save/restore, because the Linux kernel is still running on vcpus rather than the physical cpus. J