Re: suspend blockers & Android integration

[Florian Mickler <florian@mickler.org>]

On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 09:24:06 -0500
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@suse.de> wrote:

> On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 11:59 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Anyway, i'm not pessimistic at all: _some_ sort of scheme appears to be 
> > crystalising out today. Everyone seems to agree now that the main usecases are 
> > indeed useful and need handling one way or another - the rest is really just 
> > technological discussions how to achieve the mostly-agreed-upon end goal.
> 
> It's still not clear to me whether everyone's revolving around to using
> the current suspend block API because it's orthogonal to all other
> mechanisms and is therefore separate from the kernel (and can be
> compiled out if you don't want it).  Or whether re-expressing what the
> android drivers want (minimum idle states and suspend block) in pm_qos
> terms which others can use is the way to go.  I think the latter, but
> I'd like to know what other people think (because I'm not wedded to this
> preference).

I'd like to know that also. 
I have a patch to add pm_qos_add_request_nonblock function, so it is
possible to register an pm_qos constraint by passing preallocated
memory to it. 

Notifying should be possible to do from atomic contexts via
async_schedule()?

The scalability issues of pm_qos can be adressed by using plists for
all pm_qos_class'es. Or by having the different pm_qos_class'es provide
their own implementations for the update and get operations. 

Cheers,
Flo

> 
> James
> 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html