[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100504004338.GA22678@srcf.ucam.org>
Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 01:43:38 +0100
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>
To: Kevin Hilman <khilman@...prootsystems.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>, magnus.damm@...il.com,
mark gross <mgross@...ux.intel.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Geoff Smith <geoffx.smith@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 6)
On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 04:37:22PM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Please forgive the ignorance of ACPI (in embedded, we thankfully live
> in magical world without ACPI) but doesn't that already happen with
> CPUidle and C-states? I think of CPUidle as basically runtime PM for
> the CPU. IOW, runtime PM manages the devices, CPUidle manages the CPU
> (via C-states), resulting in dynaimc PM for the entire system. What
> am I missing?
ACPI doesn't provide any functionality for cutting power to most devices
other than shifting into full system suspend. The number of wakeup
events available to us on a given machine is usually small and the
wakeup latency large, so it's not terribly practical to do this
transparently on most hardware.
--
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