On Thu, 27 May 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 06:49:18PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > > ACPI provides no guarantees about what level of hardware functionality > > > remains during S3. You don't have any useful ability to determine which > > > events will generate wakeups. And from a purely practical point of view, > > > since the latency is in the range of seconds, you'll never have a low > > > enough wakeup rate to hit it. > > > > So PCs with current ACPI don't get opportunistic suspend capability. It > > probably won't be supported on the Commodore Amiga either - your point ? > > Actually, the reverse - there's no terribly good way to make PCs work > with scheduler-based suspend, but there's no reason why they wouldn't > work with the current opportunistic suspend implementation. How does that solve the problems you mentioned above ? Wakeup guarantees, latencies ... It's not a prove of the technical correctness of the approach if it can provide a useless functionality. Thanks, tglx -- 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
