On Thursday 27 May 2010, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Thu, 27 May 2010, Alan Stern wrote: > > > On Thu, 27 May 2010, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > > Crap. Stop beating on those lost wakeup events. If we lose them then > > > the drivers are broken and do not handle the switch over correctly. Or > > > the suspend mechanism is broken as it does not evaluate the system > > > state correctly. Blockers are just papering over that w/o tackling the > > > real problem. > > > > That's the point -- suspend does not evaluate the system state > > correctly because it doesn't have the necessary information. Suspend > > blockers are a way of providing it that information. They don't paper > > over the problem; they solve it. > > Nonsense. The system state is well defined when a event is pending and > we just have to say good bye to the idea that forced suspend is a good > solution. It's not as it does not guarantee the event processing in > badly written apps and it does move the power consumption to a later > point in time for those apps which acquire/drop the blockers. Well, now you have stated that Android actually doesn't work. :-) Rafael -- 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
