On Thursday 27 May 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 07:05:15PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > > I'd prefer we avoided mixing them up. Everyone seems fairly happy with > > the current operator ordered suspend behaviour I believe ? > > No. The current mechanism can lose wakeup events. As long as the operator agrees to lose wakeup events occasionally, which is the case at least 99% of the time, there's nothing wrong with that IMO. 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
