On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 07:04:24PM +0200, ext Alan Stern wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2010, Felipe Balbi wrote:
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 05:06:23PM +0200, ext Alan Stern wrote:
>If people don't mind, here is a greatly simplified summary of the
>comments and objections I have seen so far on this thread:
>
> The in-kernel suspend blocker implementation is okay, even
> beneficial.
I disagree here. I believe expressing that as QoS is much better. Let
the kernel decide which power state is better as long as I can say I
need 100us IRQ latency or 100ms wakeup latency.
Does this mean you believe "echo mem >/sys/power/state" is bad and
should be removed? Or "echo disk >/sys/power/state"? They pay no
attention to latencies or other requirements.
no, not at all. I think they are also really useful. But I also think
in-kernel suspend blockers are unnecessary. I think runtime pm + cpuidle
+ cpufreq is well enough for all cases. We just need to give those three
information about desired latencies.
--
balbi
DefectiveByDesign.org
--
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
