Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix console handling during suspend/resume

Pavel Machek
2006-06-15T16:17:21Z

Hi!

> > My point is that you really want the console enabled in writing phase
> > of suspend-to-disk. And old setup got that detail right, while new
> > setup does not.
>
> I definitely agree that we can change things around a bit. I don't
> personally use suspend-to-disk, and I'm a bit tired of having people tell
> me STD works, when STR is what I have always cared about, so if the tables
> are turned for once, I won't be _too_ sorry.
>
> I have always argued that the suspend should be a two-phase thing: a
> "prepare to suspend" (that saves the device state) and then a "real
> suspend" (that actually turns off devices).
>
> _I_ think that's the only sane schenario, and I think that in that
> schenario we could save the image to disk in between, and disable the
> console after that, and just before the "actually turn off devices" phase.
>
> But I've said that before, and nobody cared last time either. For some
> reason, people continue to think that suspend should be a single phase,
> with us sending down "suspend" to each device.

Actually we already have

device_suspend()
device_power_down()

calls (badly missnamed, some people believe), so it is two phase for
now for s2ram. s2disk is more complex...
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html