Re: [RFC] A New Power Management API

[Adam Belay <abelay@novell.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1045 bytes --]

On Sat, 2005-04-16 at 10:13 -0700, David Brownell wrote:
> On Friday 15 April 2005 6:16 am, Daniel Petrini wrote:
> > 
> > Suggestion: as discussed in early weeks, why don't adopt names taking into 
> > consideration that Linux can run in systems other than desktops and servers?
> > 
> > #define PM_SYSTEM_STATE_SUSPEND_RAM 0x00000010
> > #define PM_SYSTEM_STATE_SUSPEND_DISK 0x00000020
> 
> The notion of RAM doesn't bother me much, although it may matter
> whether that means "all system RAM is preserved" versus "only a
> small bit of on-chip SDRAM is preserved".
> 
> The notion of DISK bothers me more.  Systems with only FLASH/MTD
> probably aren't more demanding of PM infrastructure, but when
> folk assume that the only non-volatile storage is a disk, it may
> start to seem that way.
> 
> For the moment, maybe using "NONVOLATILE" rather than DISK would
> be good.  Also, somewhat of a nit, those aren't exactly states,
> so maybe take at least the _STATE_ thingie out.
> 
> - Dave

Yeah, I agree.  I've changed this.

Thanks,
Adam



[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 0 bytes --]