Re: SATA suspend-to-ram patch - merge?

[Randy.Dunlap]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005, Jens Axboe wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 21 2005, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > Joshua Kwan wrote:
> > >Is Jens' patch still relevant? If so, should it be rediffed and merged
> > >into mainline? It doesn't seem to cause any weird side-effects.
> > >
> > >More importantly, I would be inclined to properly rediff Jens' patch and
> > >merge it into Debian 2.6.12 kernel sources if there aren't any such
> > >side-effects, since it benefits everyone using SATA and suspend-to-ram
> > >(that is, users of relatively modern laptops.)
> >
> > Jens' patch is technical correct for SATA, but really we want to do more
> > stuff at the SCSI layer (see James Bottomley's response to Jens' patch).
> >
> > Unfortunately, this also implies that we have to figure out which SCSI
> > devices are available to be power-managed, and which SCSI devices are on
> > a shared bus that should never be suspended.
> >
> > So currently we are in limbo...
>
> Which is a shame, since it means that software suspend on sata is
> basically impossible :)

so just go with Jens's patch for SATA until SCSI knows more
about power management??

-- 
~Randy
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/