On Monday, 2. February 2009, Alan Stern wrote: > 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. > Actually i don't know. Arve? Things would get a lot less complex if we could leave the early suspend stuff out of the kernel. Uli -- ------- ROAD ...the handyPC Company - - - ) ) ) Uli Luckas Head of Software Development ROAD GmbH Bennigsenstr. 14 | 12159 Berlin | Germany fon: +49 (30) 230069 - 62 | fax: +49 (30) 230069 - 69 url: www.road.de Amtsgericht Charlottenburg: HRB 96688 B Managing director: Hans-Peter Constien _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
