Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 19 Jun 2000 11:03:49 -0600
From:      Warner Losh <imp@village.org>
To:        Mike Smith <msmith@freebsd.org>
Cc:        freebsd-current@freebsd.org, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: ACPI project progress report 
Message-ID:  <200006191703.LAA61037@harmony.village.org>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:07:26 PDT." <200006191707.KAA08746@mass.osd.bsdi.com> 
References:  <200006191707.KAA08746@mass.osd.bsdi.com>  

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <200006191707.KAA08746@mass.osd.bsdi.com> Mike Smith writes:
: Hmm, this has me thinking again about suspend/resume.  In the current 
: context, can we expect a suspend veto from some function to actually 
: DTRT? (ie. drivers that have been suspended get a resume call).

If the BIOS allows us to do that, yes.  I'm fairly sure that doug did
the right thing here.  The only issue that I ever ran into was that
the APM bios shut the machine down anyway, even when we tried to tell
it not to.  Funny thing about batteries, or something like that:-)

: Or should we make two passes over the suspend method?  One with "
: intention to suspend at this level", the second to actually perform the 
: suspension once the first has been accepted?

No comment.

: This will allow non-ACPI-represented drivers to participate in 
: determining which suspend level(s) can actually be supported by the 
: hardware...

That's true.

Warner


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200006191703.LAA61037>