Hi.
On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 17:27 -0800, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:> Signed-off-by: Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@xxxxxxxxxxx>> ---> include/linux/wakelock.h | 91 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++> 1 files changed, 91 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)> create mode 100755 include/linux/wakelock.h> > diff --git a/include/linux/wakelock.h b/include/linux/wakelock.h> new file mode 100755> index 0000000..a096d24> --- /dev/null> +++ b/include/linux/wakelock.h> @@ -0,0 +1,91 @@> +/* include/linux/wakelock.h> + *> + * Copyright (C) 2007-2008 Google, Inc.> + *> + * This software is licensed under the terms of the GNU General Public> + * License version 2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, and> + * may be copied, distributed, and modified under those terms.> + *> + * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,> + * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of> + * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the> + * GNU General Public License for more details.> + *> + */> +> +#ifndef _LINUX_WAKELOCK_H> +#define _LINUX_WAKELOCK_H> +> +#include <linux/list.h>> +#include <linux/ktime.h>> +> +/* A wake_lock prevents the system from entering suspend or other low power> + * states when active. If the type is set to WAKE_LOCK_SUSPEND, the wake_lock> + * prevents a full system suspend. If the type is WAKE_LOCK_IDLE, low power
Does this include hibernation? If so, you might like to say 'sleep'instead of suspend.
> + * states that cause large interrupt latencies or that disable a set of> + * interrupts will not entered from idle until the wake_locks are released.
This makes me wonder if 'wake_locks' is an appropriate name - you'relocking against sleeping rather than waking.
> + */> +> +enum {> + WAKE_LOCK_SUSPEND, /* Prevent suspend */> + WAKE_LOCK_IDLE, /* Prevent low power idle */> + WAKE_LOCK_TYPE_COUNT> +};> +> +struct wake_lock {> +#ifdef CONFIG_HAS_WAKELOCK> + struct list_head link;> + int flags;> + const char *name;> + unsigned long expires;> +#ifdef CONFIG_WAKELOCK_STAT> + struct {> + int count;> + int expire_count;> + int wakeup_count;> + ktime_t total_time;> + ktime_t prevent_suspend_time;> + ktime_t max_time;> + ktime_t last_time;> + } stat;> +#endif> +#endif> +};
If CONFIG_HAS_WAKELOCK and CONFIG_WAKELOCK_STAT are both off, you've gotan empty struct wake_lock definition. It wouldn't have any users, wouldit? (And therefore doesn't need to be defined at all).
> +> +#ifdef CONFIG_HAS_WAKELOCK> +> +void wake_lock_init(struct wake_lock *lock, int type, const char *name);> +void wake_lock_destroy(struct wake_lock *lock);> +void wake_lock(struct wake_lock *lock);> +void wake_lock_timeout(struct wake_lock *lock, long timeout);> +void wake_unlock(struct wake_lock *lock);> +> +/* wake_lock_active returns a non-zero value if the wake_lock is currently> + * locked. If the wake_lock has a timeout, it does not check the timeout> + * but if the timeout had aready been checked it will return 0.
s/aready/already/
What does it mean for the timeout to already have been checked? Is thatthe same as the timeout having already expired?
> + */> +int wake_lock_active(struct wake_lock *lock);> +> +/* has_wake_lock returns 0 if no wake locks of the specified type are active,> + * and non-zero if one or more wake locks are held. Specifically it returns> + * -1 if one or more wake locks with no timeout are active or the> + * number of jiffies until all active wake locks time out.> + */> +long has_wake_lock(int type);> +> +#else> +> +static inline void wake_lock_init(struct wake_lock *lock, int type,> + const char *name) {}> +static inline void wake_lock_destroy(struct wake_lock *lock) {}> +static inline void wake_lock(struct wake_lock *lock) {}> +static inline void wake_lock_timeout(struct wake_lock *lock, long timeout) {}> +static inline void wake_unlock(struct wake_lock *lock) {}> +> +static inline int wake_lock_active(struct wake_lock *lock) { return 0; }> +static inline long has_wake_lock(int type) { return 0; }> +> +#endif> +> +#endif> +
Regards,
Nigel
_______________________________________________linux-pm mailing listlinux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
