> There are a few lower power states on msm that we don't > differentiate > between when taking an idle lock. > > We don't use idle locks on omap. The resource framework in the > omap > tree is sufficient with the latency requirement calls in > resource34xx.c/h > > I might be wrong here but it sounds like you're trying to solve > a > similar problem but working it into the pm-qos framework? Or am > I > confused on what the subject of this thread is? pm_qos framework handles latency requirements already and can be used on all platforms. Our code at codeaurora.org for MSM chips uses pm_qos for latency. This thread discusses improving efficient execution of pm_qos in hot-path, i.e. when pm_qos is called very frequently. The improvement would apply to all pm_qos parameters, not just latency. The latency implementations in pm_qos and in android's WAKE_LOCK_IDLE are references as to what have been done already. There is a related discussion in the thread " platform specific pm_qos parameters". That thread focuses on how to add platform-specifc parameters to pm_qos, i.e. creating a mechanism so that each platform (i.e. x86, OMAP, MSM) can append its own set of pm_qos parameters and associated behavior. ~Ai _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
