| From: Pavel Machek<pavel at ucw.cz>
| >...
| > My question is whether there are aspects of suspending, other than
| > latency, that the policy manager would need to consider in deciding
| > whether to suspend or not.
| >
| > Look at it this way. In one scheme the policy manager code is:
| >
| > new_OP = select_transition(current_OP, decision_factors);
| > set_OP(new_OP);
|
| No, it would be
|
| new_OP = select_transition(current_OP, decision_factors);
| if (new_OP == SUSPEND) {
| setup wakeup events ...
| }
| set_OP(new_OP);
---
Sorry; in our implementation, the devices are responsible for
configuring the wakeup events, either globally or in their suspend
routines, so it would look like my example code. However, I would have
expected the setup of wakeup events to happen in the kernel's set_OP
implementation, rather than in the policy manager, anyway.
Again, this model puts the decision to change in user space and the
implementation of the decision in the kernel.
scott
--
scott preece
motorola mobile devices, il67, 1800 s. oak st., champaign, il 61820
e-mail: preece at motorola.com fax: +1-217-384-8550
phone: +1-217-384-8589 cell: +1-217-433-6114 pager: 2174336114 at vtext.com
