Hi! > > > For the record, I've recently observed that all the swsusp issues > > > start making sense to me when I start thinking of swsusp as being > > > completely unrelated to suspend states. (S4bios aside...) And if > > > I don't think of it that way, I keep tripping over complications > > > where it's fighting against "real" suspend states. > > > > > > The thing is, swsusp in normal usage does not involve system > > > suspend states like S1/S2/S3, or their analogues in non-ACPI > > > embedded systems. Neither does it involve wakeup from those > > > states ... in fact, it fights against addressing all those. > > > > Both swsusp and suspend2 can enter S4 as their method of powering down, > > and do use the prepare, enter and finish methods when doing so. > > As I said, S4 aside. The history I recall is that swsusp came > out a fair degree of frustration with getting Linux to work > with the BIOS support ... and lack of firmware init for video, > etc. And certainly S4 modes don't seem to be the default, or > widely used/tested. Careful, S4 *is* being used/tested. But it is very similar to swsusp with powerdown. S4bios is *not* used. It is going to die real soon. > True, not what they do now. I didn't intend to imply they did. > A checkpoint package would have key differences, including those. > > That wasn't my point: that swsusp, in normal usage, is more of a > checkpoint/restore than a suspend/resume. Which is why some of what > it wants is different from suspend/resume. In particular, since > the devices are goin to be powered off, the resume paths are VERY > different. They are in fact reset paths, not resume paths. Well, hardware may have been initialized by normal boot. So if drivers are not modular, it will work okay with suspend/resume paths in drivers. If drivers are modular, then you are right. Pavel -- People were complaining that M$ turns users into beta-testers... ...jr ghea gurz vagb qrirybcref, naq gurl frrz gb yvxr vg gung jnl!
