[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201202122232.12541.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 22:32:12 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: markgross@...gnar.org
Cc: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>,
Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>,
Greg KH <greg@...uxfoundation.org>,
Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.com>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/8] PM: Implement autosleep and "wake locks"
On Sunday, February 12, 2012, mark gross wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 01:44:10AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
[...]
> > I'd like us and Android to use the same low-level data structures for power
> > management and the same API eventually, at least for drivers. This is not
> > the case at the moment and it's actively hurting us as a project quite a bit.
> > If Android needs to add patches on top of whatever we have to get the desired
> > functionality, I'm fine with that, as long as they don't require drivers to use
> > APIs that are incompatible with the mainline. Insisting that Android should
> > use a user-space-based autosleep implementation wouldn't help at all, because
> > realistically this isn't going to happen.
>
> why not? I don't think having the PMS explicitly acknowledge a wake
> event is a big ask at all.
I'd like to hear what the Android people think about that, but somehow it seems
to me they won't like it. :-)
Thanks,
Rafael
--
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