[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100817152501.GH21182@thunk.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 11:25:01 -0400
From: Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@...il.com>, david@...g.hm,
Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.com>,
linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
arve@...roid.com, mjg59@...f.ucam.org, florian@...kler.org,
rjw@...k.pl, stern@...land.harvard.edu, peterz@...radead.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, menage@...gle.com, david-b@...bell.net,
James.Bottomley@...e.de, swmike@....pp.se, galibert@...ox.com,
dipankar@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread, take three
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 09:53:51AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> however I think you're making an assumption that there is a
> real difference between a deep idle state and "off"....
>
> For modern x86 hardware, that assumption isn't really valid.
> (other than a very very small sram that stores register content in the
> idle case)
This is more of CPU statement than a chipset or laptop/device-wide
statement, correct?
If "hardware" applies to the entire laptop, how "modern" is "modern"?
- Ted
--
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