On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> > If incoming calls are supposed to wake up the system, then there are two >> > possibilities: >> > - the already started suspend sequence may be aborted and the system may be put >> > into the low power state, >> >> I assume you mean high power state not low power state, or does low >> power state mean early-suspend state. If so, locking a wakelock will >> accomplish this. > > Actually, I meant the working state. Aborting suspend sequence always means > go back to the working state. > > Also, I think the device that detected the incoming call should abort the > suspend sequence by refusing to suspend. > >> > - the system may be suspended and then immediately woken up. >> >> If you mean this as a general strategy, and not a specific outcome, >> then it does not always work (for the reasons I have already stated). > > I meant a specific outcome. > > It may be impossible to abort suspend if the call comes in sufficiently > late. In that case, why are you against using wakelocks to abort the suspend sequence? It covers the case where the driver knows that a call is coming in, without any confusion about when the abort condition clears. And, it avoids the overhead of freezing every process for an operation that is doomed to fail. -- Arve Hjønnevåg _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
