On Sun, 26 Jun 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> > A few tiny nit-picks.. > The documents describing the interactions between runtime PM and > system sleep generally refer to the model in which the system sleep > state is entered through a global firmware or hardware operation. > As a result, some recommendations given in there are not entirely > suitable for systems in which this is not the case. Update the > documentation take the existence of those systems into accout. > I believe this should read "... documentation to take the existence of those systems ..." <...> > > +On some systems, however, system sleep is not entered through a global firmware > +or hardware operation. Instead, all hardware components are put into low-power > +states directly by the kernel in a coordinated way. Then, the system sleep > +state effectively follows from the states the hardware components end up in > +and the system is woken up from that state by a hardware interrupt or a similar > +mechanism entirely under the kernel's control. As a result, the kernel never > +gives control away and the states of all devices during resume are precisely > +known to it. If that is the case and none of the situations listed above takes > +place (in particular, if the system is not waking up from hibernation), it may > +be more efficient to leave the devices that had been suspended before the system > +suspend began in the suspended state. > + You are refering to device*s*, so I believe this last bit should be "... in the suspended states". -- Jesper Juhl <jj@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> http://www.chaosbits.net/ Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/T/top-post.html Plain text mails only, please. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
