From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Brownell Subject: Re: [PATCH] implement pm_ops.valid for everybody Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:43:59 -0700 Message-ID: <200703221444.00905.david-b@pacbell.net> References: <200703221344.l2MDi2Q9007989@olwen.urbana.css.mot.com> <200703221129.28722.david-b@pacbell.net> <200703222227.06473.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200703222227.06473.rjw@sisk.pl> Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: alexey.y.starikovskiy@intel.com, ben@simtec.co.uk, dirk.behme@de.bosch.com, pavel@ucw.cz, linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, johannes@sipsolutions.net, nico@cam.org, g.liakhovetski@gmx.de List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Thursday 22 March 2007 2:27 pm, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thursday, 22 March 2007 19:29, David Brownell wrote: > > = > > ... but I guess I don't see why one would want to try to nail down > > a definition of either "standby" or "STR". > = > So that the meaning of "standby" and "STR" is known, more or less. But "more or less" !=3D "nailed down (so tightly it's not always appicable)" > If you say "I'd like platforms to implement standby", you should say what > you mean by "standby", IMHO. I thought my original note described that, as well as describing how it differs from STR. STR shuts down a lot more. Not necessarily powering down the CPU (which is what would cause the need for boot/BIOS code to have the "this is really a resume" cases, and isn't always possible), but at least being more agressive about powering down clocks and such. - Dave