On Mon 2008-02-18 12:16:24, David Brownell wrote: > On Monday 18 February 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * David Brownell <david-b@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > - Includes a command line parameter, which needs work yet ... it > > > > > currently turns this test off, but it should also let the target > > > > > state be specified (and maybe even default to "no test"). > > > > > > I think "no test" should be the default; STR working sanely on x86 is > > > unfortunately too much a surprise. Someone more active in PM testing > > > should update that. > > > > All i'm asking for is to make the self-test easily accessible. Not for > > it to blow up in the face of users who do not ask for it. > > I'm all for that, but also I don't want to see it blow up regularly > in the face of people who just enable all the selftest options. The > other tests have a much better expectation of working "by default". > > And, at least to me, there seems to be a rather apparent correlation > > between "suspend/resume regressions caught as early as possible" and the > > future, desired state of: "STR working sanely on x86" ;-) > > Thing is, this will catch not just regressions ... but cases where > STR never worked in the first place. Video problems, etc. Also > various system startup races, as in the PCMCIA and MMC/SD/SDIO > cases I noted. David is right here. At minimum, s2ram needs acpi_sleep=... options to tell it how to set up the video. That is not issue for you, but it means we should not be doing it by default. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
