From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix console handling during suspend/resume Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 23:28:11 +0200 Message-ID: <20060616212811.GA2213@elf.ucw.cz> References: <20060614103404.GC28536@elf.ucw.cz> <200606150957.42449.david-b@pacbell.net> <20060615180350.GG23859@elf.ucw.cz> <200606160704.34093.david-b@pacbell.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline 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 List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Hi! > > It's not so different from what Linus has been sketching, except > > for the actual turn-off-DMA step. (Needed because you want to get > > an atomic snapshot.) In terms of $SUBJECT the gain is that you > > actually get a debuggable suspend sequence. > = > Actually, if the _only_ thing STD wants to do, why not just have a > = > ->freeze(dev) > ->unfreeze(dev) > = > call-in? Unfortunately, it is not the _only_ thing STD needs to do. unfreeze() must be able to reinitialize/resume the device during resume. > In other words, if you really just want to stop the devices in order to d= o = > a memory snapshot, doing a "suspend" + "resume" is _way_way_way_ overkill= , = > and really really fragile because it is so much more complicated. A > simple Well, but we need that to work for s2ram anyway. Pavel -- = (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blo= g.html