[PATCH] fd.o bug #7165: Make HAL work with S1 - Standby

Danny Kukawka danny.kukawka at web.de
Fri Aug 4 12:50:43 PDT 2006


On Friday 04 August 2006 21:34, David Zeuthen wrote
> So, I think instead of adding a new method Standby() which in many ways
> is similar to Suspend(), we should rather have a white-list of those
> broken machines and just do ACPI S1 on them instead of ACPI S3.

I'm not sure about this. At the moment there is no white-list for such 
machines and IMO S3 and S1 is different. IIRC standby is more a BIOS than a 
kernel methode/issue.

> After all, conceptually S1 and S3 are totally similar, I can't imagine
> when you want to go S1 instead of S3 [1].

See my other mail, they are different, because you in general you can't say 
what S1 do. IMO we should let the user the choise to run S1 instead of S3 
without edit a fdi-file. 

Btw. No desktop application is forced to use the methode ;-)

> [1] : maybe to reduce latency on wakeup but that sounds like an
> implementation detail rather than something we should expose in the
> interface that end-user apps use.

... my mail ... to reduce latency is not a reason to use S1 

Danny


More information about the hal mailing list