From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Felipe Balbi Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8) Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 19:27:40 +0300 Message-ID: <20100527162740.GA9625@nokia.com> References: Reply-To: felipe.balbi@nokia.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: ext Alan Stern Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Arve =?iso-8859-1?B?SGr4bm5lduVn?= , Peter Zijlstra , "Paul@smtp1.linux-foundation.org" , LKML , Florian Mickler , "Balbi Felipe (Nokia-D/Helsinki)" , Linux OMAP Mailing List , Linux PM , Alan Cox List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 05:06:23PM +0200, ext Alan Stern wrote: >If people don't mind, here is a greatly simplified summary of the >comments and objections I have seen so far on this thread: > > The in-kernel suspend blocker implementation is okay, even > beneficial. I disagree here. I believe expressing that as QoS is much better. Let the kernel decide which power state is better as long as I can say I need 100us IRQ latency or 100ms wakeup latency. -- balbi DefectiveByDesign.org