Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread

Igor Stoppa
2010-08-04T06:43:54Z

On 08/04/2010 08:22 AM, ext Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:

[snip ... discussion about wakeup sources]
> I disagree. On the msm platform the low level timer that brings us out
> of the low power state is the same for idle and suspend. The
> difference is where which kernel api the request comes from. In idle,
> the next event on the clockevents device is usually the first event.
> In suspend the generic kernel timekeeping code cancels this event and
> the rtc wakeup event remains.
>
>

wrt wakeup sources: why isn't it possible to just expect the interrupt
associated to the undesired wakeup src to be masked?
That should be possible on any platform, and I would expect the hw to
keep track that at least 1 irq has happened for a specific device:
I'm assuming that the system is fast enough to serve the irq before
another one of same type is generated, should it be considered worth of
waking up the system.

Timers might be tricky (iirc only 2 out of 12 timers are wakeup sources
on OMAP3), but many other peripherals should be easier to handle.

cheers, igor