> From: Kai Germaschewski [mailto:kai@tp1.ruhr-uni-bochum.de]
> > I still am not clear on why we would want s4bios in 2.5.x,
> since we have S4.
> > Like you said, S4bios is easier to implement, but since
> Pavel has done much
> > of the heavy lifting required for S4 proper, I don't see the need.
>
> Let me counter this, I have to admit that I didn't try the
> patch yet, but
> my laptop does S4 BIOS, and I'd definitely prefer that to
> swsusp, since
> it's much faster and also I somewhat have more faith into S4 BIOS than
> swsusp (as in: after resuming, it'll most likely either work
> or crash, but
> not cause any weird kinds of corruption). Since it does not
> need not much
> more to support it than S3, I don't see why you wouldn't want to give
> users the option?
Ok that's reasonable.
My belief is that S4bios is a stopgap measure until S4 gets better. That
said, I think you are right - it should go in for now, and then at some
point in the future someone will say, "S4bios?? who needs *that* anymore??"
and it will get pulled out. ;-)
So I'll look to merge it, unless someone upstream beats me to it.
Regards -- Andy
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 23 2002 - 22:00:18 EST