| 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: Wed, 18 May 2011 01:10:52 +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 Saturday, May 14, 2011, Raffaele Recalcati wrote: > > I read the patches. My question was about the general idea of who should > > be responsible of making these decisions. > > The best should be, I think, to have some guidelines and than the > possibility to choose the best policy for each situation. Again, I'd like to know who's supposed to make the choice. > In my board I needed to shutdown video in capture and demodulator > circuit, so I have implemented vpfe capture switch off, that does > stream_off to all its v4l2 subdevices (a pal decoder and a video > demodulator). > So I can save 30mA, and it allows to my board to survive longer. > I need to do some tests and have some data with and without PM loss. That's fine, but in general we need to take care of a few more things, like the interactions between the devices we're switching off and user space (that can be doing just about anything at the moment). We can't simply switch off devices at will, because that may lead to breakage too in general. 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