From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758104Ab0E0Q32 (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 May 2010 12:29:28 -0400 Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([192.100.122.230]:28412 "EHLO mgw-mx03.nokia.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752666Ab0E0Q30 (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 May 2010 12:29:26 -0400 Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 19:27:40 +0300 From: Felipe Balbi To: ext Alan Stern Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Arve =?iso-8859-1?B?SGr4bm5lduVn?= , Peter Zijlstra , "Paul@smtp1.linux-foundation.org" , LKML , Florian Mickler , "Balbi Felipe (Nokia-D/Helsinki)" , Linux OMAP Mailing List , Linux PM , Alan Cox Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8) Message-ID: <20100527162740.GA9625@nokia.com> Reply-To: felipe.balbi@nokia.com References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 May 2010 16:27:49.0301 (UTC) FILETIME=[8BFF1E50:01CAFDB9] X-Nokia-AV: Clean Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 05:06:23PM +0200, ext Alan Stern wrote: >If people don't mind, here is a greatly simplified summary of the >comments and objections I have seen so far on this thread: > > The in-kernel suspend blocker implementation is okay, even > beneficial. I disagree here. I believe expressing that as QoS is much better. Let the kernel decide which power state is better as long as I can say I need 100us IRQ latency or 100ms wakeup latency. -- balbi DefectiveByDesign.org