lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 01:13:04 +0100 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl> To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> Cc: Jesse Barnes <jesse.barnes@...el.com>, Jeff Chua <jeff.chua.linux@...il.com>, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Dave Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, suspend-devel List <suspend-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>, Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, Alexey Starikovskiy <aystarik@...il.com> Subject: Re: 2.6.25-rc2 System no longer powers off after suspend-to-disk. Screen becomes green. On Thursday, 21 of February 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Thu, 21 Feb 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > In fact we have acpi_pci_choose_state() that tells the driver which power > > state to put the device into in ->suspend(). If that is used, the device ends > > up in the state expected by to BIOS for S4. > > First off, nobody should *ever* use that directly anyway. Yes, sorry. > Secondly, the one that people should use ("pci_choose_state()") doesn't > actually do what you claim it does. It does all kinds of wrong things, and > doesn't even take the target state into account at all. So look again. Well, if platform_pci_choose_state() is defined, pci_choose_state() returns its result and on ACPI systems that points to acpi_pci_choose_state(), so in fact it does what I said (apart from the error path). > > No. Again, if there are devices that wake us up from S4, but not from S5, > > they need to be handled differently in the *enter S4* case (hibernation) and > > in the *enter S5* case (powering off the system). > > And again, what does this have to do with (the example I used) the > graphics hardware? Answer: nothing. The example I gave you we simply DO > THE WRONG THING FOR. > > Same thing for things like USB devices - where pci_choose_state() doesn't > work to begin with. Why do we call "suspend()" on such a thing when we > don't want to suspend it? We shouldn't. We should call "freeze/unfreeze" > (which are no-ops) and then finally perhaps "poweroff", and that final > stage might want to spin things down or similar. I'm already convinced, really. :-) Thanks, Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists