> [Arve Hj?nnev?g <arve@xxxxxxxxxxx>] > > > > > Still, I'm very much interested in your reply to the last paragraph of my > > > message, the one that you removed. > > > > Yes we need access to wakelocks from user space. We also allow third > > party apps to use wakelocks if they request the right permission. This > > could include a music player keeping the device on while playing a > > song, or an pop email client using an alarm to download email every > > hour. > > To expand on this a bit: We don't allow arbitrary apps to directly grab > wakelocks with the sys interface -- instead a system service in > userspace manages wakelock requests on behalf of apps needing them. So in fact single wakelock for userspace would be enough for you? Cool, that certainly makes user<->kernel interface easier. OTOH "gcc now has to talk to system service" requirement is quite ugly. Pavel -- (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
