On Thursday 22 March 2007 2:27 pm, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thursday, 22 March 2007 19:29, David Brownell wrote: > > > > ... but I guess I don't see why one would want to try to nail down > > a definition of either "standby" or "STR". > > So that the meaning of "standby" and "STR" is known, more or less. But "more or less" != "nailed down (so tightly it's not always appicable)" > If you say "I'd like platforms to implement standby", you should say what > you mean by "standby", IMHO. I thought my original note described that, as well as describing how it differs from STR. STR shuts down a lot more. Not necessarily powering down the CPU (which is what would cause the need for boot/BIOS code to have the "this is really a resume" cases, and isn't always possible), but at least being more agressive about powering down clocks and such. - Dave _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
