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

[Arve Hjønnevåg]

2010/5/7 Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 09:25:18PM -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
>> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 4:40 PM, Mark Brown
>
>> > This really does depend heavily on system design and the intended
>> > function of the suspend on the part of the initiator.  In many systems
>> > suspend will remove sufficient power to stop audio running even if it
>> > were desired, and there's the idea with existing manually initiated
>> > suspends that the system should stop what it's doing and go into a low
>> > power, low responsiveness state.  Some systems will initiate a suspend
>> > with active audio paths (especially those to or from the AP) which they
>> > expect to be stopped.
>
>> You can support both in the same driver in some cases (without a
>> switch). If the hardware cannot wake the system when it needs more
>> audio buffers, then the driver needs to block suspend while audio is
>> playing. Since suspend blockers only block opportunistic suspend, the
>> driver can also implement suspend to stop audio playback and it will
>> only be called for forced suspend.
>
> As discussed elsewhere in the thread a suspend blocker is not desirable
> here - the AP is not doing anything useful on a voice call so blocking
> the suspend will just waste power unless runtime PM is good enough to
> mean opportunistic suspend isn't adding anything anyway.  It will avoid
> the immediate issue with loosing audio but it's not really what we want
> to happen.
>

I was talking about audio from the AP. Why would you ever turn off
another core's audio path on suspend?

-- 
Arve Hjønnevåg
--
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/