From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756802Ab0EDAoH (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 May 2010 20:44:07 -0400 Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:35449 "EHLO cavan.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756684Ab0EDAoD (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 May 2010 20:44:03 -0400 Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 01:43:38 +0100 From: Matthew Garrett To: Kevin Hilman Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Mark Brown , Arve =?iso-8859-1?B?SGr4bm5lduVn?= , linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alan Stern , Tejun Heo , Oleg Nesterov , Paul Walmsley , magnus.damm@gmail.com, mark gross , Arjan van de Ven , Geoff Smith Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 6) Message-ID: <20100504004338.GA22678@srcf.ucam.org> References: <1272667021-21312-1-git-send-email-arve@android.com> <87wrvl5479.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> <20100503180741.GB2098@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main> <201005032318.35383.rjw@sisk.pl> <87sk68r1zh.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87sk68r1zh.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: mjg59@cavan.codon.org.uk X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on cavan.codon.org.uk); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 04:37:22PM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote: > Please forgive the ignorance of ACPI (in embedded, we thankfully live > in magical world without ACPI) but doesn't that already happen with > CPUidle and C-states? I think of CPUidle as basically runtime PM for > the CPU. IOW, runtime PM manages the devices, CPUidle manages the CPU > (via C-states), resulting in dynaimc PM for the entire system. What > am I missing? ACPI doesn't provide any functionality for cutting power to most devices other than shifting into full system suspend. The number of wakeup events available to us on a given machine is usually small and the wakeup latency large, so it's not terribly practical to do this transparently on most hardware. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org