On Wednesday, 29 August 2007 18:54, Moore, Robert wrote:
> No, it's not safe to run the AML interpreter with interrupts disabled.
OK
> I don't have any problem with introducing finer granularity enter/exit
> sleep interfaces if they are required.
>
> I would suggest that we rename things a bit however.
>
> Currently:
> acpi_enter_sleep_state_prep
> acpi_enter_sleep_state_prep_late
> acpi_enter_sleep_state
>
> acpi_leave_sleep_state_prep
> acpi_leave_sleep_state
>
> I think we can truncate and clarify:
>
> acpi_sleep_setup1
> acpi_sleep_setup2
> acpi_sleep
>
> acpi_wake_setup1
> acpi_wake
That's perfectly fine by me. I'll update the 2/3 patch to use these names.
Also, I think we can remove acpi_enter_sleep_state_s4bios() entirely (in a
separate patch).
> acpi_set_sleep_state_indicator:
>
> I'm not sure if we have any external interfaces that simply execute a
> control method, seems like overkill.
>
> Please give me more information as to why _SSI needs to be moved (other
> than executing it after _BFS)
The _SST after _BFS is okay, but the invocation of _SST in acpi_wake()
(currently acpi_leave_sleep_state) is problematic, since it causes the
indicator to be set to "working" during hibernation, before the image is
saved. Thus, during hibernation _SST shouldn't be called from acpi_wake().
For this reason, I thought it would be a good idea to call _SST from a separate
routine that might be invoked by higher level functions as desired.
Greetings,
Rafael
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
