On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 05:33:58PM -0500, Woodruff, Richard wrote: >> >> > From: linux-omap-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-omap- >> > owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Greg KH >> > Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 4:47 PM >> >> > Also note that such a driver, without wakelocks, would never get tested, >> > and so, things start quickly diverging. >> >> Do wakelock enabled drivers require a wakelock aware user space to >> function properly? > > Not that I can tell, but others might know more. > Some of our drivers may not work correctly with forced suspend, but if you don't use suspend at all, the wakelocks have no effect and all the drivers will work correctly. >> If the driver is added you want to make sure the benefit is there and >> testable for all userspaces. > > Agreed. > > thanks, > > greg k-h > -- Arve Hjønnevåg _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
