On Sunday, April 01, 2012, Zhang Rui wrote: [...] > > How about this? > > We should use the term "D3" in general in Linux. I don't see why. We can refer to the "old D3" as D3_cold. > Without _PR3, OS should *assume* that the power is removed, although it > may be not true. That's correct. > With _PR3, OS can *assure* that the power is removed, because it knows > how to remove thw power (evaluating _PR3._OFF). I'd rather say that with _PR3 we have the opportunity to avoid removing power completely from the device. In other words, D3_hot is supported (and it is supported _only_ in that case). > So the difference is that OS need to make sure whether to evaluate > _PR3._OFF when _PR3 exists. For example, a device has _PR3, but _S0W > returns 3, OS should not evaluate _PR3._OFF when the device sleeps with > remote wakeup support. That's correct. > what do you think? Well, see above and my other message in this thread. Thanks, 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
