Re: [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 6)

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Wednesday 05 May 2010, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 10:44:03PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 
> > To me, the above may be summarized that in your opinion some components of
> > the system will generally need to stay powered when it's suspended
> > opportunistically, so we need an interface to specify which components they are.
> > Is that correct?
> 
> Yes, though I think I'd be inclined to treat the problem orthogonally to
> opportunistic suspend to allow more flexibility in use and since
> treating it as part of opportunistic suspend would imply that there's
> some meaningful difference between the end result of that and a manual
> suspend which AIUI there isn't.

No, there's no such difference.

So, gnerenally, we may need a mechanism to specify which components of the
system need to stay powered while the whole system is suspended (in addition to
wakeup devices, that is).

That certainly I can agree with.

I'm not sure, however, in what way this is relevant to the $subject patchset.

Rafael
--
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/