On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 3:32 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 03:25 -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote: > >> and on systems where the >> same power state can be used from idle and suspend, we use suspend so >> we can stay in the low power state for minutes to hours instead of >> milliseconds to seconds. > > So don't you think working on making it possible for systems to be idle > _that_ long would improve things for everybody? as opposed to this > auto-suspend which only improves matters for those that (can) use it? As we've stated a number of times in the several weeks of discussion (this time around) of this patchset, we are all in favor of improving runtime pm, finding and resolving issues that prevent idle, and heading toward ever lower power states in idle -- after all, this benefits our battery life in the cases when the system is not suspended as well as moving us closer to a future where the power savings between actively entering suspend and not doing so approach zero. Aggressively entering the lowest possible power state at all times is our goal here. At the moment, the power savings from opportunistic suspend do directly lead to improved battery life, and there are some advantages to this model in the face of a non-optimal userspace (as we encounter in a world where there are not restrictions on what applications users may install and run). Brian -- 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
