[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201204010929.21234.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2012 09:29:20 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>
Cc: Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@....com>, Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andiry Xu <andiry.xu@....com>, Alex He <alex.he@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI: evaluate _PS3 when entering D3 Cold
On Sunday, April 01, 2012, Zhang Rui wrote:
[...]
>
> How about this?
>
> We should use the term "D3" in general in Linux.
I don't see why. We can refer to the "old D3" as D3_cold.
> Without _PR3, OS should *assume* that the power is removed, although it
> may be not true.
That's correct.
> With _PR3, OS can *assure* that the power is removed, because it knows
> how to remove thw power (evaluating _PR3._OFF).
I'd rather say that with _PR3 we have the opportunity to avoid removing
power completely from the device. In other words, D3_hot is supported (and
it is supported _only_ in that case).
> So the difference is that OS need to make sure whether to evaluate
> _PR3._OFF when _PR3 exists. For example, a device has _PR3, but _S0W
> returns 3, OS should not evaluate _PR3._OFF when the device sleeps with
> remote wakeup support.
That's correct.
> what do you think?
Well, see above and my other message in this thread.
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