> > For example, if one process tries to start an auto-suspend, and at the > > same time another process writes "mem" to /sys/power/state? Then the > > second process should take precedence and the system should go into > > suspend. When it wakes up again, the first process would still be > > waiting for an auto-suspend to occur. I suppose the details don't > > matter much because it's not likely to crop up often. > > I'll make a change to make any write to /sys/power/state disable > wakelocks. I'll probably also add a config option to remove > /sys/power/state. > > Before I post another patch series I have a few questions: > - Should I merge the wakelock and early-suspend api patches with their > implementations? (I initially implemented the api on top of the old > android_power driver, but we not longer use this) I think so. > - Once wakelocks are disabled by writing to /sys/power/state, is there > any demand for re-enabling wakelock support? I do not think wakelocks should be disabled. They should probably be ignored for echo mem > state, but disabling them sounds wrong. -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
