* Daniel Walker <dwalker@xxxxxxxxxx> [100506 10:30]: > On Thu, 2010-05-06 at 10:14 -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > * Matthew Garrett <mjg@xxxxxxxxxx> [100506 10:05]: > > > On Thu, May 06, 2010 at 10:01:51AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > > > > > > Or are you suspending constantly, tens of times per minute even if > > > > there's no user activity? > > > > > > In this case you'd be repeatedly trying to suspend until the modem > > > driver stopped blocking it. It's pretty much a waste. > > > > But then the userspace knows you're getting data from the modem, and > > it can kick some inactivity timer that determines when to try to > > suspend next. > > If the idle thread was doing the suspending then the inactivity timer by > it's self could block suspend. As long as the idle thread was setup to > check for timers. I'm sure that _isn't_ the point your trying to make. > It just makes gobs more sense to me that the idle thread does the > suspending .. Your idle, so depending on how long your idle then you > suspend. The alternative logic I'm suggesting is get the GUI into idle mode as soon as possible, then limp along with off-while-idle or retention-while-idle until some timer expires, then suspend the whole device. Tony _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
