[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C04AF5B.1000702@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 09:57:31 +0300
From: Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...ia.com>
To: ext Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>
CC: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Paul@...p1.linux-foundation.org" <Paul@...p1.linux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linux OMAP Mailing List <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
"Balbi Felipe (Nokia-D/Helsinki)" <felipe.balbi@...ia.com>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8)
Hi,
ext Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> It sounded like you were suggesting that initiating suspend from idle
> would somehow avoid the race condition with wakeup events. All I'm
> saying is that you would need to block suspend in all the same places.
> If you don't care about ignoring wakeup events, then sure you can
> initiate suspend from idle.
>
Sorry if i'm asking something that was already said, but the thread is
quite complex and i am not sure i have been able to grasp all of it.
So, regardless of the SW implementation:
-1) are you focusing on "good" HW or do you want to address all at the
same time?
-2) would you be ok with addressing "bad" HW as a special case, which
requires workarounds and shouldn't dictate the overall design?
-3) do you agree with the assumption that new HW is expected to get
reasonably better and therefore workarounds at point 2) will
progressively be confined to devices less and less common?
-4) going to the definition of "good" and "bad" (maybe this should have
come earlier in the list), can we define "good" HW as HW where:
* suspend state and lowest achievable runtime idle state are basically
equivalent from both power consumption and latency pov
* the HW itself is properly able to track wakeup sources while it is in
its deepest power state (as example OMAP3 has few independent
wake-capable pads and a "wake ring" where one only gets the information
that at least one of the pads belonging to such ring has received a wakeup)
* wakeup sources can be dynamically masked at HW level, so that if a
peripheral is not interesting, it doesn't wakeup the system (for example
the camera button when the camera cover is closed)
-5) HW that is not capable of properly generating asynchronous signal is
most likely the cause for extra timers in kernel and it should be
considered "bad" - in any other case having recurring in-kernel timers
should be treated as bugs, if their existence is not tied to some
meaningful work
thanks, igor
--
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