Sleepy linux support, demo version, but it works on my thinkpad x60 ;-).
Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
diff --git a/Documentation/power/sleepy.txt b/Documentation/power/sleepy.txt
new file mode 100644
index 000..a9caf05
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/power/sleepy.txt
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:26:53 +0100 Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi Pavel,
Is this limited to UP and only one disk?
[comments below]
> Sleepy linux support, demo version, but it works on my thinkpad x60 ;-).
>
> Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> diff --git
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:26:53 +0100 Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi Pavel,
Is this limited to UP and only one disk?
[comments below]
Sleepy linux support, demo version, but it works on my thinkpad x60 ;-).
Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
diff --git a/Documentation/power/sleepy.txt
Sleepy linux support, demo version, but it works on my thinkpad x60 ;-).
Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
diff --git a/Documentation/power/sleepy.txt b/Documentation/power/sleepy.txt
new file mode 100644
index 000..a9caf05
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/power/sleepy.txt
@@
Hi!
>
> > > a quick feature request: could you please make the wake-on-RTC
> > > capability generic and add a CONFIG_DEBUG_SUSPEND_ON_RAM=y config
> > > option (disabled by default) that does a short 1-second
> > > suspend-to-RAM sequence upon bootup? That way we could test s2ram
> > >
* Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > a quick feature request: could you please make the wake-on-RTC
> > capability generic and add a CONFIG_DEBUG_SUSPEND_ON_RAM=y config
> > option (disabled by default) that does a short 1-second
> > suspend-to-RAM sequence upon bootup? That way we
* Pavel Machek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
a quick feature request: could you please make the wake-on-RTC
capability generic and add a CONFIG_DEBUG_SUSPEND_ON_RAM=y config
option (disabled by default) that does a short 1-second
suspend-to-RAM sequence upon bootup? That way we could test
Hi!
a quick feature request: could you please make the wake-on-RTC
capability generic and add a CONFIG_DEBUG_SUSPEND_ON_RAM=y config
option (disabled by default) that does a short 1-second
suspend-to-RAM sequence upon bootup? That way we could test s2ram
automatically (which
On Sun 2007-12-30 12:15:52, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Todays hardware is mostly capable of doing better: with correctly set
> > up wakeups, machine can sleep and successfully pretend it is not
> > sleeping -- by waking up whenever something
On Sun 2007-12-30 12:15:52, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Pavel Machek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Todays hardware is mostly capable of doing better: with correctly set
up wakeups, machine can sleep and successfully pretend it is not
sleeping -- by waking up whenever something interesting
Am Montag, 31. Dezember 2007 15:44:47 schrieb Pavel Machek:
> On Sun 2007-12-30 17:39:42, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > But what's wrong with calling suspend() the conventional way once you've
> > decided to go into sleepy mode?
>
> I'm not sure if it can be done in non-racy way. It is different from
Am Montag, 31. Dezember 2007 15:44:47 schrieb Pavel Machek:
On Sun 2007-12-30 17:39:42, Oliver Neukum wrote:
But what's wrong with calling suspend() the conventional way once you've
decided to go into sleepy mode?
I'm not sure if it can be done in non-racy way. It is different from
On Sun 2007-12-30 17:39:42, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 30. Dezember 2007 00:51:34 schrieb Pavel Machek:
> > Hi!
> >
> > > > ... I also don't need to call any suspend() routines, because all the
> > > > drivers are already suspended, right?
> > >
> > > Well, you have a number of devices
On Sun 2007-12-30 17:39:42, Oliver Neukum wrote:
Am Sonntag, 30. Dezember 2007 00:51:34 schrieb Pavel Machek:
Hi!
... I also don't need to call any suspend() routines, because all the
drivers are already suspended, right?
Well, you have a number of devices which cannot do
Am Sonntag, 30. Dezember 2007 00:51:34 schrieb Pavel Machek:
> Hi!
>
> > > ... I also don't need to call any suspend() routines, because all the
> > > drivers are already suspended, right?
> >
> > Well, you have a number of devices which cannot do runtime pm.
> > They can do suspend/resume with
* Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Todays hardware is mostly capable of doing better: with correctly set
> up wakeups, machine can sleep and successfully pretend it is not
> sleeping -- by waking up whenever something interesting happens. Of
> course, it is easier on machines not
* Pavel Machek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Todays hardware is mostly capable of doing better: with correctly set
up wakeups, machine can sleep and successfully pretend it is not
sleeping -- by waking up whenever something interesting happens. Of
course, it is easier on machines not connected
Am Sonntag, 30. Dezember 2007 00:51:34 schrieb Pavel Machek:
Hi!
... I also don't need to call any suspend() routines, because all the
drivers are already suspended, right?
Well, you have a number of devices which cannot do runtime pm.
They can do suspend/resume with the whole
Hi!
> > ... I also don't need to call any suspend() routines, because all the
> > drivers are already suspended, right?
>
> Well, you have a number of devices which cannot do runtime pm.
> They can do suspend/resume with the whole system. For them these
> operations mean saving/restoring state.
Hi!
> > > > Is there an easy way to tell if all the devices are runtime suspended?
> > >
> > > Do you really want to know whether they are suspended or whether they
> > > could be suspended?
> >
> > If they are suspended.
> >
> > My plan is: let the drivers autosuspend on their own. If I see
Hi!
> >NOHZ + C4 + turn off screen + turn off disk + turn off SATA is still
> >~8W on thinkpad x60.
> >
> >S3 is ~1W.
> >
> >That's quite significant difference.
> >
> >(But yes, connected-to-ethernet is not most important use scenario.)
> >
Hi!
NOHZ + C4 + turn off screen + turn off disk + turn off SATA is still
~8W on thinkpad x60.
S3 is ~1W.
That's quite significant difference.
(But yes, connected-to-ethernet is not most important use scenario.)
Pavel
Hi!
Is there an easy way to tell if all the devices are runtime suspended?
Do you really want to know whether they are suspended or whether they
could be suspended?
If they are suspended.
My plan is: let the drivers autosuspend on their own. If I see all of
them are
Hi!
... I also don't need to call any suspend() routines, because all the
drivers are already suspended, right?
Well, you have a number of devices which cannot do runtime pm.
They can do suspend/resume with the whole system. For them these
operations mean saving/restoring state.
So for
Am Mittwoch, 26. Dezember 2007 21:32:58 schrieb Pavel Machek:
> ... I also don't need to call any suspend() routines, because all the
> drivers are already suspended, right?
Well, you have a number of devices which cannot do runtime pm.
They can do suspend/resume with the whole system. For them
Am Mittwoch, 26. Dezember 2007 21:32:58 schrieb Pavel Machek:
... I also don't need to call any suspend() routines, because all the
drivers are already suspended, right?
Well, you have a number of devices which cannot do runtime pm.
They can do suspend/resume with the whole system. For them
Am Mittwoch, 26. Dezember 2007 21:32:58 schrieb Pavel Machek:
> On Wed 2007-12-26 21:23:37, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, 26. Dezember 2007 21:17:22 schrieb Pavel Machek:
> > > Is there an easy way to tell if all the devices are runtime suspended?
> >
> > Do you really want to know
Pavel Machek wrote:
On Wed 2007-12-26 12:43:56, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Oliver Neukum wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 26. Dezember 2007 19:56:59 schrieb H. Peter Anvin:
3) Network card that is either down
or can wake up system on any packet (and not loose too many packets)
This is the big crux I see.
On Wed 2007-12-26 12:43:56, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Oliver Neukum wrote:
>> Am Mittwoch, 26. Dezember 2007 19:56:59 schrieb H. Peter Anvin:
3) Network card that is either down
or can wake up system on any packet (and not loose too many packets)
>>> This is the big crux I see.
Oliver Neukum wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 26. Dezember 2007 19:56:59 schrieb H. Peter Anvin:
3) Network card that is either down
or can wake up system on any packet (and not loose too many packets)
This is the big crux I see. You're going to constantly wake up the
machine due to broadcast
On Wed 2007-12-26 21:23:37, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 26. Dezember 2007 21:17:22 schrieb Pavel Machek:
> > On Wed 2007-12-26 18:28:04, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > > Am Mittwoch, 26. Dezember 2007 00:07:31 schrieb Pavel Machek:
> > > > Heute 00:07:31
> > > >
> > > > This is RFC. It does
Hi,
On Wed, 2007-12-26 at 00:07 +0100, ext Pavel Machek wrote:
> This is RFC. It does not even work for me... it sleeps but it will not
> wake up, because SATA wakeup code is missing. Code attached for illustration.
>
> I wonder if this is the right approach? What is right interface to the
>
Am Mittwoch, 26. Dezember 2007 21:17:22 schrieb Pavel Machek:
> On Wed 2007-12-26 18:28:04, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, 26. Dezember 2007 00:07:31 schrieb Pavel Machek:
> > > Heute 00:07:31
> > >
> > > This is RFC. It does not even work for me... it sleeps but it will not
> > > wake
On Wed 2007-12-26 18:28:04, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 26. Dezember 2007 00:07:31 schrieb Pavel Machek:
> > Heute 00:07:31
> >
> > This is RFC. It does not even work for me... it sleeps but it will not
> > wake up, because SATA wakeup code is missing. Code attached for
> >
Am Mittwoch, 26. Dezember 2007 19:56:59 schrieb H. Peter Anvin:
> > 3) Network card that is either down
> > or can wake up system on any packet (and not loose too many packets)
> >
>
> This is the big crux I see. You're going to constantly wake up the
> machine due to broadcast packets, and
Pavel Machek wrote:
Yep... for the first version, I'll be very happy if it autosleeps when
I'm traveling by bus or something. Working with ethernet plugged in is
quite a distant goal.
(But I guess some cleverness could be done on the router or
something. Automagically converting "interesting"
On Wed 2007-12-26 18:28:04, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 26. Dezember 2007 00:07:31 schrieb Pavel Machek:
> > Heute 00:07:31
> >
> > This is RFC. It does not even work for me... it sleeps but it will not
> > wake up, because SATA wakeup code is missing. Code attached for
> >
On Wed 2007-12-26 10:56:59, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Pavel Machek wrote:
>> This is RFC. It does not even work for me... it sleeps but it will not
>> wake up, because SATA wakeup code is missing. Code attached for
>> illustration.
>> I wonder if this is the right approach? What is right interface
Pavel Machek wrote:
This is RFC. It does not even work for me... it sleeps but it will not
wake up, because SATA wakeup code is missing. Code attached for illustration.
I wonder if this is the right approach? What is right interface to the
drivers?
3) Network card that is either down
or can
Am Mittwoch, 26. Dezember 2007 00:07:31 schrieb Pavel Machek:
> Heute 00:07:31
>
> This is RFC. It does not even work for me... it sleeps but it will not
> wake up, because SATA wakeup code is missing. Code attached for illustration.
>
> I wonder if this is the right approach? What is right
Am Mittwoch, 26. Dezember 2007 00:07:31 schrieb Pavel Machek:
Heute 00:07:31
This is RFC. It does not even work for me... it sleeps but it will not
wake up, because SATA wakeup code is missing. Code attached for illustration.
I wonder if this is the right approach? What is right
Pavel Machek wrote:
This is RFC. It does not even work for me... it sleeps but it will not
wake up, because SATA wakeup code is missing. Code attached for illustration.
I wonder if this is the right approach? What is right interface to the
drivers?
3) Network card that is either down
or can
On Wed 2007-12-26 10:56:59, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Pavel Machek wrote:
This is RFC. It does not even work for me... it sleeps but it will not
wake up, because SATA wakeup code is missing. Code attached for
illustration.
I wonder if this is the right approach? What is right interface to the
On Wed 2007-12-26 18:28:04, Oliver Neukum wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 26. Dezember 2007 00:07:31 schrieb Pavel Machek:
Heute 00:07:31
This is RFC. It does not even work for me... it sleeps but it will not
wake up, because SATA wakeup code is missing. Code attached for
illustration.
I
Pavel Machek wrote:
Yep... for the first version, I'll be very happy if it autosleeps when
I'm traveling by bus or something. Working with ethernet plugged in is
quite a distant goal.
(But I guess some cleverness could be done on the router or
something. Automagically converting interesting
Am Mittwoch, 26. Dezember 2007 19:56:59 schrieb H. Peter Anvin:
3) Network card that is either down
or can wake up system on any packet (and not loose too many packets)
This is the big crux I see. You're going to constantly wake up the
machine due to broadcast packets, and spend a
On Wed 2007-12-26 18:28:04, Oliver Neukum wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 26. Dezember 2007 00:07:31 schrieb Pavel Machek:
Heute 00:07:31
This is RFC. It does not even work for me... it sleeps but it will not
wake up, because SATA wakeup code is missing. Code attached for
illustration.
I
Am Mittwoch, 26. Dezember 2007 21:17:22 schrieb Pavel Machek:
On Wed 2007-12-26 18:28:04, Oliver Neukum wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 26. Dezember 2007 00:07:31 schrieb Pavel Machek:
Heute 00:07:31
This is RFC. It does not even work for me... it sleeps but it will not
wake up, because
Hi,
On Wed, 2007-12-26 at 00:07 +0100, ext Pavel Machek wrote:
This is RFC. It does not even work for me... it sleeps but it will not
wake up, because SATA wakeup code is missing. Code attached for illustration.
I wonder if this is the right approach? What is right interface to the
drivers?
Oliver Neukum wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 26. Dezember 2007 19:56:59 schrieb H. Peter Anvin:
3) Network card that is either down
or can wake up system on any packet (and not loose too many packets)
This is the big crux I see. You're going to constantly wake up the
machine due to broadcast
On Wed 2007-12-26 12:43:56, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Oliver Neukum wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 26. Dezember 2007 19:56:59 schrieb H. Peter Anvin:
3) Network card that is either down
or can wake up system on any packet (and not loose too many packets)
This is the big crux I see. You're going to
Pavel Machek wrote:
On Wed 2007-12-26 12:43:56, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Oliver Neukum wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 26. Dezember 2007 19:56:59 schrieb H. Peter Anvin:
3) Network card that is either down
or can wake up system on any packet (and not loose too many packets)
This is the big crux I see.
On Wed 2007-12-26 21:23:37, Oliver Neukum wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 26. Dezember 2007 21:17:22 schrieb Pavel Machek:
On Wed 2007-12-26 18:28:04, Oliver Neukum wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 26. Dezember 2007 00:07:31 schrieb Pavel Machek:
Heute 00:07:31
This is RFC. It does not even work for
Am Mittwoch, 26. Dezember 2007 21:32:58 schrieb Pavel Machek:
On Wed 2007-12-26 21:23:37, Oliver Neukum wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 26. Dezember 2007 21:17:22 schrieb Pavel Machek:
Is there an easy way to tell if all the devices are runtime suspended?
Do you really want to know whether they
This is RFC. It does not even work for me... it sleeps but it will not
wake up, because SATA wakeup code is missing. Code attached for illustration.
I wonder if this is the right approach? What is right interface to the
drivers?
Sleepy Linux
This is RFC. It does not even work for me... it sleeps but it will not
wake up, because SATA wakeup code is missing. Code attached for illustration.
I wonder if this is the right approach? What is right interface to the
drivers?
Sleepy Linux
56 matches
Mail list logo
