On Thu, 27 May 2010 18:45:25 +0200 (CEST) Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The whole notion of treating suspend to RAM any different than a plain > idle C-State is wrong. It's not different at all. You just use a > different mechanism which has longer takedown and wakeup latencies and > requires to shut down stuff and setup extra wakeup sources. > > And there is the whole problem. Switching from normal event delivery > to those special wakeup sources. That needs to be engineered in any > case carefuly and it does not matter whether you add suspend blockers > or not. Ok, I just don't know the answer: How is it just another idle state if the userspace gets frozen? Doesn't that bork the whole transition and you need a userspace<->kernel synchronisation point to not loose events? Cheers, Flo -- 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
