On Wednesday 25 November 2009, Alan Stern wrote: > Rafael: > > It turns out that I need a pm_schedule_idle() routine. > pm_schedule_suspend() just doesn't do what I want -- I need the > runtime_idle() callback to be invoked when the timer expires, not > runtime_suspend(). > > Adding the routine itself is easy enough, but the obvious way to > implement it is to use dev->power.request to tell the timer function > whether it should queue an idle or a suspend. This leads to a problem: > It becomes impossible to queue an idle request if there's a scheduled > suspend. The reason is that power.request has to remain set to > indicate that a suspend should be queued when the timer expires, so it > can't be changed to RPM_REQ_IDLE. > > One possible way around this would be to have pm_schedule_idle() > completely replace pm_schedule_suspend(). This seems like a reasonable > approach -- at the time of the function call we don't know what > conditions will be like in the future, so when the timer expires we > should check again to see if a suspend is appropriate. > > What do you think? I'm against that. In fact I have a usage case that would be broken by this change. What exactly is your usage scenario? Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
