Re: ACPI: Idle Processor PM Improvements

[Pavel Machek]

On Tue 2006-09-12 14:14:30, Jim Gettys wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-09-12 at 11:21 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> 
> > Ok, so what is needed is message to X "we are suspending", and X needs
> > to respond "okay, I'm ready, no need for console switch".
> 
> This presumes an external agent to X controlling the fast
> suspend/resume, with messages having to flow to and from X, and to and
> from the kernel, with the kernel in the middle.
> 
> Another simpler option is X itself just telling the kernel to suspend
> without console switch, as the handoff of the display to the DCON chip
> has to be done with X and with an interrupt signaling completion of the
> handoff.  This would be triggered by an inactivity timeout in the X
> server.

Whoa... that's a hack.. but yes, you can probably do that, and I think
kernel even has neccessary interfaces already. (They were needed for
uswsusp).

> > Alternatively, hack kernel to take control from X without actually
> > switching consoles. That should be possible even with current
> > interface.
> 
> This would require saving/restoring all graphics state in the kernel
> (and X already has that state internally).  Feasible, but seems like

Hmm, save/restore graphics state from the kernel would of course be
clean solution, but you should have that anyway... what if someone
suspends without X running?

And of course you can just cheat, and not do kernel save-state on your
system.

									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/