[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100527171833.GD9625@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 20:18:33 +0300
From: Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@...ia.com>
To: ext Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>,
Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Paul@...p1.linux-foundation.org" <Paul@...p1.linux-foundation.org>,
"Balbi Felipe (Nokia-D/Helsinki)" <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)
Hi,
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 07:04:38PM +0200, ext Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>Opportunistic suspend is just a deep idle state, nothing else. If the
>overall QoS requirements allow to enter that deep idle state then the
>kernel goes there. Same decision as for all other idle states. You
>don't need any user space blocker for this decision, just sensible QoS
>information.
agree completely with you. Adding virtual differences between power
states is a bad idea and causes unnecessary complication to the system.
If we have a generic way of describing desired latencies (irq, wakeup,
throughput, whatever), then the kernel should decide what's the best
power state for the current situation.
--
balbi
DefectiveByDesign.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