[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1274974479.27810.5247.camel@twins>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 17:34:39 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
Paul@...p1.linux-foundation.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>, felipe.balbi@...ia.com,
Linux OMAP Mailing List <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8)
On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 16:33 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Thu, 27 May 2010 17:09:16 +0200
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 11:06 -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > >
> > > Opportunistic suspends are okay.
> > >
> > > The proposed userspace API is too Android-specific.
> >
> > I would argue opportunistic suspends are not ok, and therefore the
> > proposed API is utterly irrelevant.
>
> Assuming you are happy that opportunistically entering C6 and the like is
> ok via ACPI can you explain why you have a problem with opportunistic
> suspend and why it is different to a very deep sleep CPU state such as we
> have now (and which on many embedded platforms we deal with *is* sleeping
> external devices too)
Agreed, but I understood the opportunistic suspend line from Alan Stern
to mean the echo opportunistic > /sys/power/foo thing.
If you view it as an extra deep idle state I have no problem with it
(because its simply an idle state, nothing magic about those).
--
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