[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090216232329.GA15678@srcf.ucam.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 23:23:30 +0000
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
"Woodruff, Richard" <r-woodruff2@...com>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Kyle Moffett <kyle@...fetthome.net>,
Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Nigel Cunningham <nigel@...el.suspend2.net>,
mark gross <mgross@...ux.intel.com>,
Uli Luckas <u.luckas@...d.de>,
Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...ia.com>,
Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.com>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFD] Automatic suspend
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 12:19:38AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> This, again, seems to be a bit x86-centric. :-) The Android people are telling
> us that on the hardware they deal with it does make sense to put the entire
> system to sleep even for relatively short periods of time, since the latencies
> involved are not too bad.
Arve said that the power state was equivalent in idle and suspend, but
that they preferred suspend because it stopped any periodic timers. I'd
be more interested in making sure that unnecessary timers aren't running
than focusing on automatically entering system-wide suspend - Nokia have
been managing this since 2005 with good results.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.org
--
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