[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100511164554.GA17016@srcf.ucam.org>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 17:45:54 +0100
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>
To: Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...prootsystems.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>,
Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 6)
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 09:36:33AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> OK, so can the suspend blocker then become just:
>
> # Block suspend while idle, system stays running
> # echo default > /sys/power/policy
>
> and the when it's OK to suspend:
>
> # Allow suspend while idle, system suspends when it hits kernel idle loop
> # echo opportunistic > /sys/power/policy
>
> or do you still need something more to ensure the data gets into your
> app and be handled?
Yes. You still need suspend blocks.
> The part I really don't like is the idea of patching all over the drivers
> and userspace for the wakelocks/suspendblocks.
I don't like the idea either, but given that nobody has actually
provided any other ideas that would actually work then I don't think
we've got a great deal of choice.
--
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