[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100606133130.GA8513@srcf.ucam.org>
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 14:31:30 +0100
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To: Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@...il.com>
Cc: Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.com>,
Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>, tytso@....edu,
Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linux OMAP Mailing List <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@...ia.com>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] suspend blockers & Android integration
On Sun, Jun 06, 2010 at 12:00:47PM +0200, Vitaly Wool wrote:
> Sure, but my point was, some non-trivial (still kind of natural for a
> smartphone) activities with the device will prevent it from suspending
> for quite some time. Even worse, the suspend wakelock will keep the
> whole kernel active, as opposed to powering off unused devices
> separately as it's done in runtime PM. Yep, I know about the "early
> suspend" type of thing; yet it's excess, not mainlined and lacks
> granularity.
Holding a suspend blocker is entirely orthogonal to runtime pm. The
"whole kernel" will not be "active" - it can continue to hit the same
low power state in the idle loop, and any runtime pm implementation in
the drivers will continue to be active.
--
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