[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 14:34:19 +0100
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>,
Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@...il.com>,
Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.com>,
Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>, tytso@....edu,
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>,
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 12:05:57PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 12:46:01 +0200
> Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org> wrote:
> > That is not true. While the kernel is not suspended it does
> > runtime pm.
>
> On several of our platforms runtime PM already includes suspend so a
> suspend wakelock does interfere with existing power managemet at that
> level (not to mention the maintenance mess it causes).
No, it doesn't. Android on omap will enter the mpu/core off state from
the idle loop even if a suspend block is held.
--
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