On Thu, May 06, 2010 at 12:05:01AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > 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. The patch set essentially makes using a full system suspend as the lowest power state for runtime PM part of the standard Linux power management toolkit which means that it's no longer clear as it used to be that suspend is an instruction to cease all activity and go into a minimal power state if the device is not a wake source. In the primary existing application this change interoperates very poorly with at least the current audio subsystem since that handles suspend by ceasing all activity and powering as much as it can off, which is sensible for manual only suspends but highly undesirable for opportunistic suspend in phones. We should therefore have some idea how this and any other affected areas are supposed to work. As I said in my reply to Ted earlier I think we may actually be converging on not worrying too much about it at the global level and doing subsystem specific things to discover and handle affected cases, at least for the time being. Ideally we'd have something standard to hook into but no subsystems apart from audio have actually been identified as being affected so it's not clear to me that a general solution is going to be worth the effort, if there's no actual users it may just confuse people by adding yet more power managment stuff to learn. _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
