From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Uli Luckas Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/13] PM: Add wake lock api. Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 11:55:06 +0100 Message-ID: <200902131155.07530.u.luckas@road.de> References: <1233802226-23386-1-git-send-email-arve@android.com> <13B9B4C6EF24D648824FF11BE89671620377169672@dlee02.ent.ti.com> <20090213011035.GA8664@srcf.ucam.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20090213011035.GA8664@srcf.ucam.org> Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org Cc: "ncunningham@crca.org.au" , "swetland@google.com" List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Friday, 13. February 2009, Matthew Garrett wrote: > I dislike the kernel-side use of wakelocks. They're basically equivalent > to a device returning -EBUSY during the suspend phase, which is > something that can be done without any kernel modifications. That's absouletely wrong. With wake locks, you are in a pre suspend state and stay there until all wakelocks are released. Then you go to sleep. With -EBUSY the kernel gives up on suspend until some source triggers it again. When exactly should suspend then be retried? Uli -- ------- ROAD ...the handyPC Company - - - ) ) ) Uli Luckas Head of Software Development ROAD GmbH Bennigsenstr. 14 | 12159 Berlin | Germany fon: +49 (30) 230069 - 62 | fax: +49 (30) 230069 - 69 url: www.road.de Amtsgericht Charlottenburg: HRB 96688 B Managing director: Hans-Peter Constien