RE: [PATCH 0/2] PM / sleep: Support for using suspend-to-idle by default

[Mario.Limonciello]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rjwysocki@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:rjwysocki@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> Rafael J. Wysocki
> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016 3:05 PM
> To: Limonciello, Mario <Mario_Limonciello@xxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Linux PM <linux-
> pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
> Len Brown <len.brown@xxxxxxxxx>; Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-
> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] PM / sleep: Support for using suspend-to-idle by
> default
> 
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 9:40 PM,  <Mario.Limonciello@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Hi Rafael,
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Rafael J. Wysocki [mailto:rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2016 8:19 PM
> >> To: Linux PM list <linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Cc: ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Len Brown
> >> <len.brown@xxxxxxxxx>; Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-
> >> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Limonciello, Mario
> >> <Mario_Limonciello@xxxxxxxx>; Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Subject: [PATCH 0/2] PM / sleep: Support for using suspend-to-idle by
> >> default
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> This series is a follow-up for a BoF discussion during the LPC.
> >>
> >> The discussion was about supporting Linux on modern laptops and one of
> >> the issues mentioned was the lack of support for suspend-to-idle in user
> >> space and if there's anything that can be done about that in the kernel.
> >>
> >> The following patches are my input. :-)
> >>
> >> The first one reworks the suspend interface to allow the "mem" string
> >> in /sys/power/state to represent multiple things that can be selected via
> >> an additional sysfs attribute.
> >>
> >> The second one makes ACPI select suspend-to-idle as the default
> suspend
> >> mode
> >> if so indicated in the FADT.
> >>
> >> Please let me know what you think.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Rafael
> >
> > Thanks for submitting.  I like the approach, especially that it leaves room
> > to easily modify the behavior for debugging purposes and adding quirks.
> 
> Well, that's the point. :-)
> 
> > I tested your series on a machine that had this bit set in the FADT and
> > confirmed that it set up and used policy properly.
> >
> > Tested-By: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@xxxxxxxx>
> 
> Thanks!

Rafael,

I hadn't noticed these merged into any of your linux-pm.git branches.

Do you have a plan for merging them?  Or waiting for other feedback?

Thanks,