From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] suspend blockers & Android integration
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 14:34:19 +0100
Message-ID: <20100606133419.GB8513@srcf.ucam.org>
References: <1275731653.27810.41078.camel@twins> <20100605092851.6ee15f13@infradead.org> <AANLkTimEwznq9c_8lkuBMxEQ-42rdvpZEqA9Y71Cu-qC@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimKknOurmCffOpHjc1FjrP2MKf10pBwEEbLJPg_@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTil1NCX91bWhpXHtC88Opr29mNjdhXD9RXQ6DI0y@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTin1Za3GvfIKbcZdx6TzjIHzCvsg5uaY_Vk4nJIh@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTilQ1k78dDCYadOa1Wiyjm2nsBcRpxwdpGvYcf8z@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTin7oM3gVwHbIHWqYV8yeC6bbQ4q2jDDxAgz3DwQ@mail.gmail.com> <20100606124601.2f1f6714@schatten.dmk.lab> <20100606120557.72356de9@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:57236 "EHLO
	cavan.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1756344Ab0FFNet (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>); Sun, 6 Jun 2010 09:34:49 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20100606120557.72356de9@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org
To: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Florian Mickler <florian@mickler.org>, Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@gmail.com>, Brian Swetland <swetland@google.com>, Arve =?iso-8859-1?B?SGr4bm5lduVn?= <arve@android.com>, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>, tytso@mit.edu, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>, James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@suse.de>, Linux PM <linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Linux OMAP Mailing List <linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@nokia.com>

On Sun, Jun 06, 2010 at 12:05:57PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 12:46:01 +0200
> Florian Mickler <florian@mickler.org> wrote:
> > That is not true. While the kernel is not suspended it does
> > runtime pm.
> 
> On several of our platforms runtime PM already includes suspend so a
> suspend wakelock does interfere with existing power managemet at that
> level (not to mention the maintenance mess it causes).

No, it doesn't. Android on omap will enter the mpu/core off state from 
the idle loop even if a suspend block is held.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org