From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix console handling during suspend/resume Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 08:09:27 +1000 Message-ID: <1151446167.2350.79.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <200606231106.46863.david-b@pacbell.net> <20060623233244.GB4264@neo.rr.com> <20060624024230.GB3438@neo.rr.com> <1151124740.10141.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1151130644.10141.70.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060627060810.GD4264@neo.rr.com> <1151391516.2350.55.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.osdl.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.osdl.org To: Linus Torvalds Cc: David Brownell , linux-pm@lists.osdl.org, Pavel Machek List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org > What if the interrupt controller or timers or whatever aren't strictly a = > "parent" of the devices that need it? THAT'S OK. Sure and we have sysdev's for these low level things, those _do_ get suspended with IRQ off. I hate sysdev's for many reasons but not that one :) > (It's also more than OK - it's a fact of life on some things. It should b= e = > ok to shut off the interrupt controller before you shut off some devices, = > and it should be ok to bring core devices up before the interrupt = > controller is even working). > = > So all of this means that I don't think the system should be "live" durin= g = > the last phase. It should be as dead as humanly possible. Yeah, I see your point, and it does make sense, but I still need to find a solution for the problem of the console semaphore :) I might have to keep fbdev's in the first phase for now. Ben.