Re: [RFC][PATCH -mm] PM: Introduce set_target method in pm_ops

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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

[Index of Archives]     [Linux IBM ACPI]     [Linux Power Management]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux Laptop]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Resources]

  Powered by Linux