Re: [RFC] Suspend/resume without VT switches

2012-11-02 Thread Jesse Barnes
On 11/2/2012 4:38 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: On Friday, November 02, 2012 04:29:37 PM Jesse Barnes wrote: On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 22:51:07 +0100 "Rafael J. Wysocki" wrote: On Friday, November 02, 2012 02:43:39 PM Jesse Barnes wrote: I've lightly tested this with X and it definitely makes my su

Re: [RFC] Suspend/resume without VT switches

2012-11-02 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Friday, November 02, 2012 04:29:37 PM Jesse Barnes wrote: > On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 22:51:07 +0100 > "Rafael J. Wysocki" wrote: > > > On Friday, November 02, 2012 02:43:39 PM Jesse Barnes wrote: > > > I've lightly tested this with X and it definitely makes my > > > suspend/resume sequence a bit pr

Re: [RFC] Suspend/resume without VT switches

2012-11-02 Thread Jesse Barnes
On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 22:51:07 +0100 "Rafael J. Wysocki" wrote: > On Friday, November 02, 2012 02:43:39 PM Jesse Barnes wrote: > > I've lightly tested this with X and it definitely makes my > > suspend/resume sequence a bit prettier. It should speed things up > > trivally as well, but most of thos

Re: [RFC] Suspend/resume without VT switches

2012-11-02 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Friday, November 02, 2012 02:43:39 PM Jesse Barnes wrote: > I've lightly tested this with X and it definitely makes my > suspend/resume sequence a bit prettier. It should speed things up > trivally as well, but most of those gains come from other changes to the > i915 driver (posted earlier to

[RFC] Suspend/resume without VT switches

2012-11-02 Thread Jesse Barnes
I've lightly tested this with X and it definitely makes my suspend/resume sequence a bit prettier. It should speed things up trivally as well, but most of those gains come from other changes to the i915 driver (posted earlier to intel-gfx). Any thoughts? I suspect we'll have to be more defensive