On Friday 27 February 2009, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Friday 27 February 2009, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 03:22:39PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> > On Friday 27 February 2009, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >> > > Wakelocks done right are single atomic_t... and if you set it to 0,
> >> > > you just unblock "sleeper" thread or something. Zero polling and very
> >> > > simple...
> >> >
> >> > Except that you have to check all of the wakelocks periodically in a loop =>
> >> > polling. So?
> >>
> >> Why do you need to check them? If you're taking this approach you just
> >> have something like:
> >>
> >> suspend_unblock() {
> >> if (atomc_dec_and_test(&suspend_lock))
> >> suspend();
> >> }
> >>
> >> and then check that the lock count is still 0 after device_suspend().
> >> There's no need to poll.
> >
> > I was talking about wakelocks as originally proposed.
>
> Can you be more specific? My wakelock implementation triggers suspend
> when the active list becomes empty. No polling required.
Sorry, I overlooked and/or didn't remember that. My bad.
Rafael
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
