On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 07:24:24PM +0100, ext Kevin Hilman wrote: > "Peter 'p2' De Schrijver" <peter.de-schrijver@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > This patch introduces a new C state C0 which keeps both core and mpu > > powerdomains in ON state. This gives us low latency at a cost of higher > > power consumption. > > > > I don't like the name 'C0' for an idle-state. In ACPI terms, C0 is an > active state, not an idle state. I know this is not an ACPI system, > but since we're using ACPI names, we should be consistent. > > Is there a real benefit to having an additional state here? Shouldn't > we just make these changes or C1? > C1 has a too high wakeup latency (10s of us) for some cases, but C0 (which has a 3us wakeup latency) keeps core on which implies little powersavings. So I think we need both. Cheers, Peter. -- goa is a state of mind -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
