[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100621155749.GD1447@ucw.cz>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 17:57:49 +0200
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Arve Hj?nnev?g <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, 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!
(ok, so I'm little late to the party).
> > Nonsense, if we want to push the system into suspend from the idle
> > state we can do that. It's just not implemented and we've never tried
> > to do it as it requires a non trivial amount of work, but I have done
> > it on an ARM two years ago as a prove of concept and it works like a
> > charm.
>
> ACPI provides no guarantees about what level of hardware functionality
> remains during S3. You don't have any useful ability to determine which
> events will generate wakeups. And from a purely practical point of view,
We'll need ACPI extensions, then (or very conservative
drivers). suspend blockers do *not* help here.
> since the latency is in the range of seconds, you'll never have a low
> enough wakeup rate to hit it.
I did 'sleepy linux' prototype on PC, and yes I was able to get to
'once in 5 seconds' wakeup rate... good enough...
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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