On Sun, 24 Jun 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > Is this design okay with system states in which the CPU is able to run? > > Do you mean the patch or the suggestions above? The suggestions. > > Right now the states we have are On, Standby, and Suspend, and the CPU > > runs only in the On state. But on some platforms there could be > > multiple states in which the CPU is able to run, albeit with degraded > > performance. > > I wouldn't call those system sleep states. For example, ACPI defines system > sleep states as the states in which no instructions are executed by any CPUs > and I think that's reasonable. > > Moreover, the ACPI spec insists that transitions between different sleep > states should be made through the On state. Okay. But on non-ACPI systems, do we want to restrict the /sys/power/state interface to sleep states? How then should the user tell the system to go to a low-performance run state? Or should that be handled automatically within the kernel? Alan Stern - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
