On Sunday 20 December 2009, Alan Stern wrote: > On Sun, 20 Dec 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > It's too early to come to this sort of conclusion (i.e., that suspend > > > and resume react very differently to an asynchronous approach). Unless > > > you have some definite _reason_ for thinking that resume will benefit > > > more than suspend, you shouldn't try to generalize so much from tests > > > on only two systems. > > > > In fact I have one reason. Namely, the things that drivers do on suspend and > > resume are evidently quite different and on these two systems I was able to > > test they apparently took different amounts of time to complete. > > > > The very fact that on both systems resume is substantially longer than suspend, > > even if all devices are suspended and resumed synchronously, is quite > > interesting. > > Yes, it is. But it doesn't mean that suspend won't benefit from > asynchronicity; it just means that the benefits might not be as large > as they are for resume. Agreed, although that rises the question whether they are sufficiently significant. I guess time will tell. With the i8042 done asynchronously they are IMO. BTW, what's the right place to call device_enable_async_suspend() for USB devices? Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
