On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 14:33 +0200, Florian Mickler wrote: > On Wed, 26 May 2010 15:29:32 +0300 > Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > hi, > > > > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 02:24:30PM +0200, ext Florian Mickler wrote: > > >And if you have two kernels, one with which your device is dead after 1 > > >hour and one with which your device is dead after 10 hours. Which would > > >you prefer? I mean really... this is ridiculous. > > > > What I find ridiculous is the assumption that kernel should provide good > > power management even for badly written applications. They should work, > > of course, but there's no assumption that the kernel should cope with > > those applications and provide good battery usage on those cases. > > > > You can install and run anything on the device, and they will work as > > they should (they will be scheduled and will be processed) but you can't > > expect the kernel to prevent that application from waking up the CPU > > every 10 ms simply because someone didn't think straight while writting > > the app. > > > > But then someone at the user side has to know what he is doing. > > I fear, if you target mass market without central distribution > channels, you can not assume that much. Provide the developers and users with tools. Notify the users that their phone is using power at an unadvised rate due to proglet $foo. Also, if you can integrate into the development environment and provide developers instant feedback on suckage of their app they can react and fix before letting users run into the issue. -- 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
