[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201001252254.37635.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 22:54:37 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
dri-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, Eric Anholt <eric@...olt.net>,
airlied@...ux.ie
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM / i915: Skip kernel VT switch during suspend/resume if KMS is used
On Monday 25 January 2010, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > But in that case we should be able to disable the VT switch disable
> > > path; we just have to check each driver as it's loaded.
> >
> > OK, what the right sequence of checks would be in that case and where to place
> > them?
>
> Why are we even driving a vt switch direct from the suspend/resume
> logic ? The problem starts there. If it was being handled off the device
> suspend/resume method then there wouldn't be a mess to start with ?
>
> Start at the beginning
>
> - Why do we switch to arbitarily chosen 'last vt'
> - Why isn't vt related suspend/resume handled by the device
Well, that was added long ago as a workaround for some problems people
reported (presumably). I've never looked at that before, so I can't really
tell why someone did it this particular way.
Obviously I'd like to clean it up, though.
So, what device should handle this in your opinion?
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