From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: [linux-pm] suspend blockers & Android integration Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 14:31:30 +0100 Message-ID: <20100606133130.GA8513@srcf.ucam.org> References: <1275653210.27810.39762.camel@twins> <1275731653.27810.41078.camel@twins> <20100605092851.6ee15f13@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:57164 "EHLO cavan.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756344Ab0FFNcJ (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Jun 2010 09:32:09 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Vitaly Wool Cc: Brian Swetland , Arve =?iso-8859-1?B?SGr4bm5lduVn?= , Arjan van de Ven , tytso@mit.edu, Florian Mickler , Peter Zijlstra , "H. Peter Anvin" , LKML , Neil Brown , James Bottomley , Alan Cox , Linux PM , Ingo Molnar , Linux OMAP Mailing List , Linus Torvalds , Thomas Gleixner , Felipe Balbi On Sun, Jun 06, 2010 at 12:00:47PM +0200, Vitaly Wool wrote: > Sure, but my point was, some non-trivial (still kind of natural for a > smartphone) activities with the device will prevent it from suspending > for quite some time. Even worse, the suspend wakelock will keep the > whole kernel active, as opposed to powering off unused devices > separately as it's done in runtime PM. Yep, I know about the "early > suspend" type of thing; yet it's excess, not mainlined and lacks > granularity. Holding a suspend blocker is entirely orthogonal to runtime pm. The "whole kernel" will not be "active" - it can continue to hit the same low power state in the idle loop, and any runtime pm implementation in the drivers will continue to be active. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org