| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 18:54:57 +0200 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl> To: Raffaele Recalcati <lamiaposta71@...il.com> Cc: linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, davinci-linux-open-source@...ux.davincidsp.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: pm loss development On Friday, May 13, 2011, Raffaele Recalcati wrote: > Hi Rafael, > > 2011/5/12 Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl>: > > On Thursday, May 12, 2011, Raffaele Recalcati wrote: > >> What happen normally in runtime pm implementation is that every devices > >> are switched off and are enabled only when needed. > >> In our case instead we have a completely functional embedded system and, > >> when an asyncrhonous event appear, we have only some tens milliseconds > >> before the actual power failure takes place. > >> This patchset add a support in order to switch off not vital part of the system, > >> in order to allow the board to survive longer. > >> This allow the possibility to save important data. > > > > OK, so first, who decides what parts of the system are vital and what aren't? > > Take a quick look at Documentation/power/loss.txt paragrpah "2.4 > Power loss policies". > You can decide what can be powered off. I read the patches. My question was about the general idea of who should be responsible of making these decisions. Thanks, Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists