<div> </div>
<div class="gmail_quote">2009/3/23 Li Yang-R58472 <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:LeoLi@freescale.com">LeoLi@freescale.com</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div class="im">> -----Original Message-----<br>> From: Wood Scott-B07421<br></div>
<div class="im">> Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 10:42 PM<br>> To: Li Yang-R58472<br>> Cc: Soohyung Cho; <a href="mailto:linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org">linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org</a><br>> Subject: Re: suspend-to-mem on the mpc8349e-mitx-gp?<br>
><br></div>
<div class="im">> Li Yang-R58472 wrote:<br>> >> However, the code should treat "mem" as "standby" on chips<br>> that don't<br>> >> support deep sleep. What does the device tree<br>
> ><br>> > Well, shouldn't the valid() callback reject unsupported<br>> states instead<br>> > of covering up?<br>><br>> I don't think so, in this case. The user is not asking for<br>> "sleep" or deep sleep"; they are asking for a power state<br>
> that meets the definition of "standby" (which sleep does) or<br>> which meets the definition of "mem"<br>> (which both sleep and deep sleep do). When the user asks for<br>> "mem", we provide the lowest power mode that qualifies.<br>
<br></div>In my understanding, "mem" which is suspend-to-ram means all CPU states and registers are kept in memory and the CPU is completely off during suspension. I don't think the sleep mode of 8349 qualifies, does it?<br>
<br>- Leo<br></blockquote></div>
<div> </div>
<div><br>
<div>I also agree to Leo. </div>
<div>It can be confusing, if "mem" means both sleep and deep sleep.</div>
<div>It would be better not to show "mem", if 8349 don't have deep sleep mode.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>- Soohyung</div></div>