Subject: Re: ACPI suspend support.
To: Jason Thorpe <email@example.com>
From: Kentaro A. Kurahone <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 01/25/2005 19:15:32
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 09:02:27AM -0800, Jason Thorpe wrote:
> ...and I think something a lot more than the current powerhook stuff is
> really needed. We need to be able to express a richer set of power
> states. It might make sense to adopt the S* nomenclature of ACPI,
> since PCI also uses the same nomenclature.
Sounds good. The ACPI S* states are a lot more flexible than the APM
equivalents, so this should ease some of the pain when trying to deal with
this on hpc/macppc targets.
On the changing powerhook note, I'm wondering if passing POWER_STATE_S[0-5],
via why is sufficient. Device drivers can use this to transition between
power states/save or restore context as needed. The current strongpoint of
the powerhook stuff is that devices that don't/can't do powermanagement
don't need the code for it. The downside being that it's a bit on the
minimalistic side, and there's no easy way to have a default behavior
apart from "do nothing".
Kentaro A. Kurahone
SIGUSR1 Research and Development