From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] swsusp: do not use pm_ops (was: Re: suspend2 merge (was: Re: CFS and suspend2: hang in atomic copy)) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 23:06:26 +0200 Message-ID: <200705042306.27060.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <200705042220.24518.rjw@sisk.pl> <1178310082.7408.33.camel@johannes.berg> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1178310082.7408.33.camel@johannes.berg> 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: Johannes Berg Cc: Nigel Cunningham , Pekka Enberg , Pavel Machek , Linux-pm mailing list List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Friday, 4 May 2007 22:21, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Fri, 2007-05-04 at 22:20 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > On the other hand, steps 6 and 7 aren't really needed for hibernation. > > > You _could_ shut the system off completely (ACPI S5). Automatic wakeup > > > wouldn't work, but the next time the user turned the computer on manually > > > it would still resume from hibernation. > > > > That's correct, with the exception that the user may find the system not fully > > functional after the resume in that case. > > Why is that anyway? Is it just a matter of the acpi code getting > confused about the acpi bios state? Yes, I think so. > How can the acpi bios possibly be screwed up after what it must see as a > fresh boot? Does the acpi code poke it in ways it's not supposed to be poked > after a fresh boot? Sort of. Greetings, Rafael