[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090227101632.GG4582@elf.ucw.cz>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:16:32 +0100
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>,
Arve Hj?nnev?g <arve@...roid.com>,
"Woodruff, Richard" <r-woodruff2@...com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Kyle Moffett <kyle@...fetthome.net>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Nigel Cunningham <nigel@...el.suspend2.net>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
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
> To summarize, we can:
> * Use a refcount such that automatic suspend will only be possible if it's
> equal to zero (but that need not be the only criterion).
> * Use a per-device flag in dev_pm_info that will be set whenever the device
> driver increases the refcount and unset whenever the driver decreases the
> refcount.
> * Use a per-process flag that will be set whenever the process increases the
> refcount and unset whenever the process decreases the refcount.
Yes, that sounds sane, and that's how reasonable wakelock
implementation should look like.
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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