* Matthew Garrett <mjg@xxxxxxxxxx> [100511 09:41]: > On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 09:36:33AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > OK, so can the suspend blocker then become just: > > > > # Block suspend while idle, system stays running > > # echo default > /sys/power/policy > > > > and the when it's OK to suspend: > > > > # Allow suspend while idle, system suspends when it hits kernel idle loop > > # echo opportunistic > /sys/power/policy > > > > or do you still need something more to ensure the data gets into your > > app and be handled? > > Yes. You still need suspend blocks. Maybe not if echo opportunistic > /sys/power/policy gets cleared by the kernel if the kernel idle loop can't make it. That means something has blocked the suspend attempt in a driver for example. The system keeps running, and the userspace can deal with the situation. > > The part I really don't like is the idea of patching all over the drivers > > and userspace for the wakelocks/suspendblocks. > > I don't like the idea either, but given that nobody has actually > provided any other ideas that would actually work then I don't think > we've got a great deal of choice. If the opportunistic kernel flag is one time attempt only, then you could take care of the wakelock/suspendblock handling in the userspace completely. And once the userspace wakelock/suspendblock is cleared, the userspace can again echo opportunistic > /sys/power/policy. Regards, Tony _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
