On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 10:46 -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2010, James Bottomley wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 21:21 -0700, David Brownell wrote:
> > > Do we at least have a clean way that a driver can
> > > reject a system suspend? I've lost track of many
> > > issues, but maybe this could be phrased as a QOS
> > > constraint: the current config of driver X needs
> > > clock Y active to enter the target system suspend
> > > state, driver's suspend() method reports as much. Then the entry to
> > > that system state gets blocked
> > > if the clock isn't enabled.
> >
> > So in QoS modifications to android patches, the answer is "yes" ...
> > except that the current android patch set didn't actually have this type
> > of wakelock in it.
> >
> > Android wants an idleness suspend block (or pm qos constraint) that a
> > driver can set to prevent the system idleness power govenor from
> > dropping into a power state too low for the driver, so in USB terms this
> > would prevent the states that shut down the clock. For android, it
> > prevented shutdown of an internal i2c bus.
> >
> > The one thing that does look difficult is that these power constraints
> > are device (and sometimes SoC) specific. Expressing them in a generic
> > way for the cpu govenors to make sense of might be hard.
>
> Doesn't the clock framework already handle this sort of thing?
Well, there are two elements to "this sort of thing":
1. Allow a driver to request that a given clock not be turned off.
2. Make the cpuidle governors aware of a pending "don't turn off X
clock source" so they can keep the system in a state where the
clock doesn't get powered down.
As far as I can tell from the code, neither currently exists at the
moment.
James
--
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
