Re: [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 6)

[Brian Swetland]

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Mark Brown
<broonie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 10:44:03PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
>> To me, the above may be summarized that in your opinion some components of
>> the system will generally need to stay powered when it's suspended
>> opportunistically, so we need an interface to specify which components they are.
>> Is that correct?
>
> Yes, though I think I'd be inclined to treat the problem orthogonally to
> opportunistic suspend to allow more flexibility in use and since
> treating it as part of opportunistic suspend would imply that there's
> some meaningful difference between the end result of that and a manual
> suspend which AIUI there isn't.

I'd agree with this.  This is one of the reasons I haven't felt
opportunistic suspend is a big departure from other work here -- there
are always some cases in which drivers will need to keep external
resources active even when suspended.  Also, as I mentioned earlier,
we (Android at least, but hopefully this is non-controversial) would
always like drivers to put everything in the lowest possible power
state they can get away with.  Every little savings adds up.

Brian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/