On Mon, 2 Feb 2009, Uli Luckas wrote: > On Sunday, 1. February 2009, Alan Stern wrote: > > Early-suspend seems to be a completely different matter. In fact it > > isn't a suspend state at all, as far as I understand it. It's more > > like what you get simply by doing a runtime suspend on some collection > > of devices. I don't see that the kernel needs to treat it as a special > > state, and in might be possible to have a user program manage the whole > > thing -- provided the drivers in question implement runtime power > > management (as USB has done). > > > > Alan Stern > > Except you always want early-suspend and auto-suspend at the same time. The > idea is, if all display of system states is off (early-suspend), we can > enable or disable the cpu at will (auto-suspend) because nobody will notice. Why should the kernel have to get involved? Why can't userspace manage both early-suspend and auto-suspend? That is, consider the following: Userspace initiates an early-suspend by using a runtime PM interface to turn off the screen and some other devices. After a short time, if they are still off, then userspace can initiate an auto-suspend by writing "auto-mem" to /sys/power/state. All the kernel would need to know is the difference between auto-suspend and normal suspend: one respects wakelocks and the other doesn't. Alan Stern _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
