On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 10:44:03PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> To me, the above may be summarized that in your opinion some components of >> the system will generally need to stay powered when it's suspended >> opportunistically, so we need an interface to specify which components they are. >> Is that correct? > > Yes, though I think I'd be inclined to treat the problem orthogonally to > opportunistic suspend to allow more flexibility in use and since > treating it as part of opportunistic suspend would imply that there's > some meaningful difference between the end result of that and a manual > suspend which AIUI there isn't. I'd agree with this. This is one of the reasons I haven't felt opportunistic suspend is a big departure from other work here -- there are always some cases in which drivers will need to keep external resources active even when suspended. Also, as I mentioned earlier, we (Android at least, but hopefully this is non-controversial) would always like drivers to put everything in the lowest possible power state they can get away with. Every little savings adds up. Brian _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
