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: ...) Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 23:00:02 +0200 Message-ID: <200705072300.03299.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <200705061816.46439.david-b@pacbell.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200705061816.46439.david-b@pacbell.net> 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: David Brownell Cc: Nigel Cunningham , Pekka Enberg , Pavel Machek , Johannes Berg , Linux-pm mailing list List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Monday, 7 May 2007 03:16, David Brownell wrote: > On Saturday 05 May 2007, Alan Stern wrote: > > > Agreed, these all sound like problems in the ACPI driver's implementation > > of suspend and resume. Problems that are caused (at least in part) by the > > fact that the PM core doesn't tell the driver whether it's doing > > suspend-to-RAM vs. hibernation. Once that is straighened out, everything > > else should become much simpler. > > I'm not sure I agree with that diagnosis, but for the record: > updating drivers/pci/pci-acpi.c so that it can implement the > platform_pci_choose_state() hook requires ACPI to export that > information. > > So for now I have drivers/acpi/sleep/main.c exporting > > s_state = acpi_get_target_sleep_state(); > > so that ACPI-aware code can know to call "_S3D" instead of > the "_S1D" or "_S4D" methods (and "_S3W" etc). Of course > the $SUBJECT patch will finish borking that for S4. :( Why exactly? Rafael