On Wed, 2004-11-10 at 14:00 -0800, David Brownell wrote: > On Monday 01 November 2004 18:16, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > > The fact that all suspend() callbacks imply freeze, which is a drivers > > state, makes me think that freeze is just what ... suspend() means. That > > is, we can get rid of the "freeze" semantic altogether if we consider > > that the pm_message contains a suggested "abstract" power state. suspend > > with state "on" would mean freeze. > > I'm not sure I like "on == freeze", but certainly it > seems plausible to model "freeze" as a power state > with minimal semantics. If the state is really needed, > that is ... I suspect the kexec() model would be just > as well achieved by unbinding all drivers from the > devices. Ditto halt(). > > You've claimed that APM needs a FREEZE state. Why? > If the issue is "BIOS handles hardware power states" > that could be addressed more directly in for example > pci_set_power_state(): "if (system_uses_APM()) return". Ugh... hidden magic inside of the PCI layer ? nope please ;) Besides, freeze is absolutely necessary for STD right ? Ben.
