On Wednesday 05 May 2010, Mark Brown 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. No, there's no such difference. So, gnerenally, we may need a mechanism to specify which components of the system need to stay powered while the whole system is suspended (in addition to wakeup devices, that is). That certainly I can agree with. I'm not sure, however, in what way this is relevant to the $subject patchset. Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
