Re: [PATCH] implement pm_ops.valid for everybody

[Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>]

Hi!

> > Almost all users of pm_ops only support mem sleep, don't check in .valid
> > and don't reject any others in .prepare so users can be confused if they
> > check /sys/power/state, especially when new states are ever added.
> 
> By the way ... as a note to implementors, it should be trivial to
> implement a basic "standby" state that suspends drivers, disables
> many clocks, and probably puts DRAM into self-refresh mode, but
> uses only the wait-for-interrupt CPU lowpower mode.
> 
> A key difference between that and STR would then be that STR does
> extra magic, like switching the CPU to a slow clock and then turning
> off all the clocks that drive the chip "fast".  Also, that because
> it disables so many clocks, the SOC probably can't support as many
> types of wakeup events in STR.
> 
> I mention this because implementing such a "standby" mode means
> that all the platform drivers can start to make their suspend()
> and resume() code behave, and userspace tools can be put into
> place, before all that tricky/painful STR work gets done.  Also,
> because driver wakeup events in such a "standby" mode tend to be
> a lot more powerful ... pretty much how a driver using runtime
> PM models would work (instead of user-visible "goto sleep").

Actually, I second that. "standby" that spins down disks to protect
them for transport is very useful feature, even if it does not save
much power. (Okay, that's notebooks and high-end-zauruses with
spinning disks, but...)
								Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html