From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Florian Mickler Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8) Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 19:21:35 +0200 Message-ID: <20100527192135.6c6543b3@schatten.dmk.lab> References: <20100526120242.5c9b73ad@schatten.dmk.lab> <20100526133721.602633b2@schatten.dmk.lab> <20100526142430.327ccbc4@schatten.dmk.lab> <20100526141612.3e2e0443@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20100527003943.07c17f85@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20100527140655.GA28048@srcf.ucam.org> <20100527155201.GA31937@srcf.ucam.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from ist.d-labs.de ([213.239.218.44]:51966 "EHLO mx01.d-labs.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932443Ab0E0RVl (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 May 2010 13:21:41 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Matthew Garrett , Alan Cox , Arve =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Hj=F8nnev=E5g?= , Vitaly Wool , Peter Zijlstra , LKML , Paul@smtp1.linux-foundation.org, felipe.balbi@nokia.com, Linux OMAP Mailing List , Linux PM On Thu, 27 May 2010 18:45:25 +0200 (CEST) Thomas Gleixner wrote: > The whole notion of treating suspend to RAM any different than a plain > idle C-State is wrong. It's not different at all. You just use a > different mechanism which has longer takedown and wakeup latencies and > requires to shut down stuff and setup extra wakeup sources. > > And there is the whole problem. Switching from normal event delivery > to those special wakeup sources. That needs to be engineered in any > case carefuly and it does not matter whether you add suspend blockers > or not. Ok, I just don't know the answer: How is it just another idle state if the userspace gets frozen? Doesn't that bork the whole transition and you need a userspace<->kernel synchronisation point to not loose events? Cheers, Flo