On Thu, May 06, 2010 at 01:33:59AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > set up that way). Even without the patchset you may implement a power > manager in user space that will suspend the system whenever it thinks it's > idle. Clearly, but... > On Thursday 06 May 2010, Mark Brown wrote: > > 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. > You said that there's no fundamental difference between manual and > opportunistic suspend. It only matters what _you_ are going to use suspend > for. I agree that at the moment it's not suitable for aggressive power > management in phones because of the audio problem, but that applies to > "manual" as well as to "opportunistic" suspend. ...on the other hand there's exactly one existing application for this, and that's the one that's most likely to run into problems since it's a phone OS and aggressive power management is pretty important for phones. Merging a feature into mainline makes it much more something which one would expect to play nicely with the rest of the kernel - if it's something that isn't part of the standard kernel or userspaces it's much less surprising that additional changes may be required to produce a well integrated system. > You're saying that suspend is not suitable for one particular purpose in its > current form, which is entirely correct, but that doesn't imply that the > patchset is wrong. As I keep saying I agree that merging this is reasonable given the additional power savings it brings in practical systems today. As I also keep saying I do want to have some understanding about what the story is for dealing with the problems so that people can easily use this feature out of the box. Like I say, my current impression is that the best approach is for affected subsystems or drivers to implement a custom solution - does that match your understanding and that of the other PM maintainers? _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
