On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 12:19:08 +0200 Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 2010/6/6 <david@xxxxxxx>: > > > as an example (taken from this thread). > > > > system A needs to wake up to get a battery reading, store it and go back to > > sleep, It does so every 10 seconds. But when it does so it only runs the one > > process and then goes back to sleep. > > > > system B has the same need, but wakes up every 10 minutes. but when it does > > so it fully wakes up and this allows the mail app to power up the radio, > > connect to the Internet and start checking for new mail before oppurtunistic > > sleep shuts things down (causing the mail check to fail) > > > > System A will last considerably longer on a battery than System B. > > Exactly, thanks for pointing out the specific example :) > > ~Vitaly This does not affect suspend_blockers nor does suspend_blockers interfere with that. Suspend_blockers allow the system to suspend ("mem">/sys/power/state suspend), when the userspace decides that the device is not in use. So implementing suspend_blockers support does not impact any optimizations done to either system A nor system B. 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