On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 10:58:54 -0800 "David Brownell" <david-b@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > So, two types of request to drivers then. The main one would be to > become compatible with a given system power state; flexible. The > inflexible one would be to go into a specific device power state. I like the idea of the flexible request. This would add the ability for the policy to individually manage devices that for one reason or another cannot or should not enter a power state compatible with the system power state. As an illustrative example, I'm thinking of a fictitious VoIP phone with an audio device that has an abnormally large latency resuming from a clocks off power state, so by the time it wakes up and is ready to go, the incoming call is lost. At this point, the user/developer/designer could decide that the the extra power consumed by leaving the clocks on is less important then having a responsive device, and the policy is set so that the device only enters a D1 state with a suspend-to-ram system power state, rather then a D3 state as it normally would (pardon the PCI/ACPI terms, they're just for simplicity). In that case, even though the device state wouldn't technically be compatible with the given system state, it would still be the best fit for the platform as a whole. Jordan
