On Saturday 05 May 2007, Alan Stern wrote: > But who says that hibernate has to use "Non-Volatile Sleep" and normal > shutdown has to use software-controlled "poweroff"? Why shouldn't the > user be able to do it the other way 'round? Well, the definition of NVS matches hibernation, and the definition of soft-off matches poweroff. > > > No, I'm suggesting that the user should be able to control whether Linux > > > uses S4 vs. S5 at poweroff time. If the user selected always to use S4 > > > then wakeup devices would function in both hibernation and normal > > > shutdown. If the user selected always to use S5 then wakeup devices would > > > not function in either hibernation or normal shutdown. > > > > That's a different suggestion, yes. I'm not sure I see any > > benefit of that flexibility for "soft off" states though, > > especially if it made "off" consume more power. > > The benefit is that it allows more devices to function as wakeup sources, > right? With downsides of "more power consumed during 'off' states" and "invalidating documentation, training, and expectations". This is a case where the fact that something could technically be done doesn't recommend it to me. - Dave _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
