Re: [linux-pm] suspend blockers & Android integration

[Alan Stern]

On Fri, 11 Jun 2010, James Bottomley wrote:

> On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 21:21 -0700, David Brownell wrote:
> > Do we at least have a clean way that a driver can
> > reject a system suspend?  I've lost track of many
> > issues, but maybe this could be phrased as a QOS
> > constraint:  the current config of driver X needs
> > clock Y active to enter the  target system suspend
> > state, driver's suspend() method reports as much.  Then the entry to
> > that system state gets blocked
> > if the clock isn't enabled.
> 
> So in QoS modifications to android patches, the answer is "yes" ...
> except that the current android patch set didn't actually have this type
> of wakelock in it.
> 
> Android wants an idleness suspend block (or pm qos constraint) that a
> driver can set to prevent the system idleness power govenor from
> dropping into a power state too low for the driver, so in USB terms this
> would prevent the states that shut down the clock.  For android, it
> prevented shutdown of an internal i2c bus.
> 
> The one thing that does look difficult is that these power constraints
> are device (and sometimes SoC) specific.  Expressing them in a generic
> way for the cpu govenors to make sense of might be hard.

Doesn't the clock framework already handle this sort of thing?

Alan Stern

--
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/