On Thu 2009-02-05 16:13:27, Arve Hj?nnev?g wrote: > On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 2:51 PM, mark gross <mgross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> +A locked wakelock, depending on its type, prevents the system from entering > >> +suspend or other low-power states. When creating a wakelock, you can select > >> +if it prevents suspend or low-power idle states. If the type is set to > >> +WAKE_LOCK_SUSPEND, the wakelock prevents a full system suspend. If the type > >> +is WAKE_LOCK_IDLE, low-power states that cause large interrupt latencies, or > >> +that disable a set of interrupts, will not be entered from idle until the > >> +wakelocks are released. Unless the type is specified, this document refers > >> +to wakelocks with the type set to WAKE_LOCK_SUSPEND. > > > > How much of this can be implemented using a pm-qos approach? > > WAKE_LOCK_IDLE overlaps with pm-qos, if you use it to prevent latency. Yes. So pleaase remove wake_lock_idle and use pm-qos. Feel free to improve pm-qos if you need to. > > wake_lock going to block until the dives its locking is in a good power > > state? (I'm guessing yes) Is doing this in the context of and IRQ a > > good idea? > > wake_lock never blocks. Wakelock is really bad name: it is not a lock and it does not protect wake. I'd say we need better name here. -- (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
