Re: [RFC] A New Power Management API

Adam Belay
2005-04-17T20:26:22Z

[-- 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