On Wednesday, 21 March 2007 23:57, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > > Which is very much an indication of how weak ACPI is. It > > > doesn't contemplate typical SOC behavior, which have a wide > > > variety of system sleep states that leave the CPU on ... and > > > which may not even *have* (or need!) a "cpu off" state. > > > > > > My own definition would be more like: the minimal RAM-based > > > power-saving system state is "standby". If the system > > > implements a deeper RAM-based system sleep state, that's "STR". > > > > Hmmm, this leaves the decision how to call each state COMPLETELY to the > > implementor, doesn't it? > > Is that a problem? If someone is clever enough to implement suspend, I > think we can trust them to name their states right. > > (And trust me, we can flame them if not). > > (Anyway, my definition would be "mem" == RAM is powered, everything > else is down, except for devices needed for wakeup; "standby" == > something is powered that can be powered down, we'll fix that in next version). I think we can define "standby" a bit more precisely. Something like: - processes are frozen, - devices are suspended, - nonboot CPUs are down (and in low powered states, if possible), - "system" devices may or may not be suspended, depending on the platform, - the boot CPU may or may not be in a low power state, depending on the platform, - RAM is powered - wake up need not be BIOS-driven (main difference from "mem") Greetings, Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
