On Wednesday, 29 August 2007 18:54, Moore, Robert wrote: > No, it's not safe to run the AML interpreter with interrupts disabled. OK > I don't have any problem with introducing finer granularity enter/exit > sleep interfaces if they are required. > > I would suggest that we rename things a bit however. > > Currently: > acpi_enter_sleep_state_prep > acpi_enter_sleep_state_prep_late > acpi_enter_sleep_state > > acpi_leave_sleep_state_prep > acpi_leave_sleep_state > > I think we can truncate and clarify: > > acpi_sleep_setup1 > acpi_sleep_setup2 > acpi_sleep > > acpi_wake_setup1 > acpi_wake That's perfectly fine by me. I'll update the 2/3 patch to use these names. Also, I think we can remove acpi_enter_sleep_state_s4bios() entirely (in a separate patch). > acpi_set_sleep_state_indicator: > > I'm not sure if we have any external interfaces that simply execute a > control method, seems like overkill. > > Please give me more information as to why _SSI needs to be moved (other > than executing it after _BFS) The _SST after _BFS is okay, but the invocation of _SST in acpi_wake() (currently acpi_leave_sleep_state) is problematic, since it causes the indicator to be set to "working" during hibernation, before the image is saved. Thus, during hibernation _SST shouldn't be called from acpi_wake(). For this reason, I thought it would be a good idea to call _SST from a separate routine that might be invoked by higher level functions as desired. Greetings, Rafael - 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
