From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=34151 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Oq4D6-000794-85 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 09:15:43 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Oq4Cp-0001uS-2f for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 09:15:27 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:17817) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Oq4Co-0001uF-RC for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 09:15:23 -0400 Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:15:16 +0300 From: Gleb Natapov Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 0/5] RFC: distinguish warm reset from cold reset. Message-ID: <20100830131516.GD10499@redhat.com> References: <4C7B64D7.2020703@redhat.com> <20100830083520.GA7402@valinux.co.jp> <20100830111909.GC10499@redhat.com> <4C7BAC83.4000004@codemonkey.ws> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4C7BAC83.4000004@codemonkey.ws> List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Anthony Liguori Cc: glommer@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, blauwirbel@gmail.com, Isaku Yamahata , alex.williamson@redhat.com, Avi Kivity On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 08:05:07AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > On 08/30/2010 06:19 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote: > >Why stop there. Why not implement proper power planes support. Some > >devices are not powered down on S3/S4 suspend for instance. > > What feature would it give us? The mapping of D-state to S-state is > defined by the ACPI tables, no? So we're in total control of > whether we would ever do this and I can't see the advantage of doing > it. > ACPI only describes how actual HW behaves. I don't understand why do you bring ACPI here. RTC can be setup to wake up guest. Currently we reset RTC on S3. -- Gleb.