From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8) Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 00:01:07 +0200 Message-ID: <201005280001.07364.rjw@sisk.pl> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:50136 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753285Ab0E0V7n (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 May 2010 17:59:43 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Alan Stern , Matthew Garrett , Peter Zijlstra , LKML , Florian Mickler , felipe.balbi@nokia.com, Linux OMAP Mailing List , Linux PM , Alan Cox On Thursday 27 May 2010, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Thu, 27 May 2010, Alan Stern wrote: > > > On Thu, 27 May 2010, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > > Crap. Stop beating on those lost wakeup events. If we lose them then > > > the drivers are broken and do not handle the switch over correctly. Or > > > the suspend mechanism is broken as it does not evaluate the system > > > state correctly. Blockers are just papering over that w/o tackling the > > > real problem. > > > > That's the point -- suspend does not evaluate the system state > > correctly because it doesn't have the necessary information. Suspend > > blockers are a way of providing it that information. They don't paper > > over the problem; they solve it. > > Nonsense. The system state is well defined when a event is pending and > we just have to say good bye to the idea that forced suspend is a good > solution. It's not as it does not guarantee the event processing in > badly written apps and it does move the power consumption to a later > point in time for those apps which acquire/drop the blockers. Well, now you have stated that Android actually doesn't work. :-) Rafael