Thread (1 message) 1 message, 1 author, 2007-12-26

Re: Suspend code ordering (again)

From: Alexey Starikovskiy <hidden>
Date: 2007-12-26 15:24:06

Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)

Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Wednesday, 26 of December 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
  
quoted
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
    
quoted
the ACPI specification between versions 1.0x and 2.0.  Namely, while ACPI
2.0 and later wants us to put devices into low power states before calling
_PTS, ACPI 1.0x wants us to do that after calling _PTS.  Since we're following
the 2.0 and later specifications right now, we're not doing the right thing for
the (strictly) ACPI 1.0x-compliant systems.

We ought to be able to fix things on the high level, by calling _PTS earlier on
systems that claim to be ACPI 1.0x-compliant.  That will require us to modify
the generic susped code quite a bit and will need to be tested for some time.
      
That's insane. Are you really saying that ACPI wants totally different 
orderings for different versions of the spec?
    
Yes, I am.

  
quoted
And does Windows really do that?
    
I don't know.
  
Windows was compliant only with 1.x spec until Vista.
With Vista claims are 3.x compliance.
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help