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

[Alan Stern]

On Fri, 11 Jun 2010, Mark Brown wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 10:46:27AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Jun 2010, James Bottomley wrote:
> 
> > > 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?
> 
> The clock framework is implemented independantly for each CPU.

That's not an impediment, since drivers' requirements regarding which 
clocks remain running in which power states are necessarily 
platform-dependent also.


On Fri, 11 Jun 2010, James Bottomley wrote:

> Well, there are two elements to "this sort of thing":
> 
>      1. Allow a driver to request that a given clock not be turned off.
>      2. Make the cpuidle governors aware of a pending "don't turn off X
>         clock source" so they can keep the system in a state where the
>         clock doesn't get powered down.
> 
> As far as I can tell from the code, neither currently exists at the
> moment.

Well then, can (or should) the clock framework interact with the
pm-qos subsystem so that drivers don't have to worry about it?

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/