| 1 |
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 00:09:48 +0200 Alan McKinnon |
| 2 |
<alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On Sunday 10 January 2010 23:40:57 Stroller wrote: |
| 4 |
> > This was my reaction, too, but c'mon, Linux's sleep functionality |
| 5 |
> > must have a rewake feature, mustn't it? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> I dunno. Think about this - in suspend, nothing is working and no |
| 8 |
> user-code is running. The only power consumed is what is needed to |
| 9 |
> refresh RAM. That must be there otherwise the content goes away if |
| 10 |
> you try and resume. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> So what part of the machine is powered to be able to wake it up? PCs |
| 13 |
> don't have alarm clocks, the on-board clock can't usually do it, so |
| 14 |
> the only option is for some code to be running, polling the time and |
| 15 |
> cause the system to wake up. Which is exactly what suspend does not |
| 16 |
> do. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Windows can do that and BIOS has such settings too. Those are |
| 19 |
power management settings like "suspend to RAM after X minutes", |
| 20 |
"hibernate after Y minutes". In order to hibernate it has to wake up |
| 21 |
first, so there must be some place where a timer is set. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
And I have seen it done on Linux. I just never tried it myself. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Cheers, |
| 27 |
Renat |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Probleme kann man niemals mit derselben Denkweise loesen, |
| 31 |
durch die sie entstanden sind. |
| 32 |
(Einstein) |
Archives