From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alan Stern Subject: Re: [Update][PATCH 7/8] PM / Domains: System-wide transitions support for generic domains (v3) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 14:22:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: References: <201106231941.09429.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <201106231941.09429.rjw@sisk.pl> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, Greg Kroah-Hartman , LKML , Linux PM mailing list List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 23 Jun 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > It should say "system suspend" rather than "system sleep". > > It says "system sleep" to distinguish between the state of the system > ("system sleep") and the operation leading to that state ("system suspend"). > That terminology is used all over the document, so I don't think it's a good > idea to change it just for this specific paragraph. > > I agree that "suspend" should be used where it talks about starting, stopping > etc. > > > Then to drive the point home, the following sentence chould say > > something like this: > > > > If that is the case and none of the situations listed above takes place > > (in particular, if the system is waking up from suspend and not from > > hibernation), it may be more efficient to leave the devices that had > > been suspended before the system suspend began in the suspended state. > > That's fine by me, except that I'd simply say "(in particular, if the system > is not waking up from hibernation)". Okay. Alan Stern