From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: Hibernation considerations Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 22:58:33 +0200 Message-ID: <200707172258.35113.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <87k5syg3yi.fsf@jbms.ath.cx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <87k5syg3yi.fsf@jbms.ath.cx> 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: Jeremy Maitin-Shepard Cc: david@lang.hm, LKML , Kyle Moffett , Al Boldi , "Eric W. Biederman" , Pavel Machek , "Huang, Ying" , Andrew Morton , pm list List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday, 17 July 2007 22:39, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote: > david@lang.hm writes: > > [snip] > > > the non-ACPI hibernate behaves very differently, and for some people (and I > > think I am one of them) it will meet their needs better then _any_ of the ACPI > > suspends. > > It may have certain differences from the user point of view, but from > the implementation view, it seems that it is nearly exactly the same. > The only differences seem to be: > > - rather than shutting down, do whatever is necessary to stick the > system in S4 state. > > - make sure ACPI isn't initialized by the "load image" kernel > > - rather than "resume from hibernate" ACPI by initializing it normally, > issue the special hibernate-related methods. > > Thus, it seems that supporting ACPI S4 will have a very minimal affect > on the hibernate implementation. Still, you need to take it into account. Greetings, Rafael -- "Premature optimization is the root of all evil." - Donald Knuth