On Saturday 15 May 2010, tytso@xxxxxxx wrote: > On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 03:32:58PM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote: > > Another likely reason that that there hasn't been an alternate > > proposal (at least from some of us that are raising concerns) is > > because we already have a working solution to dynamic, system-wide PM > > that is 1) already in mainline and 2) shipping on consumer devices > > with very strict power budgets (as already pointed out in detail by > > Paul[2].) > > The examples cited where the things like the Palm Pre, and the Nokia > N770/800/810 series. #1, what works on one embedded > chipset/architecture might not work on another, and #2, the battery > lifetime on the N770 and N800 (both of which I have) is **appalling** > **bad**. > > I really don't understand why people are so opposed to merging code > that works well for a very large set of devices and products. Just > because *you* don't need it is not a sufficiently good reason to argue > for it not be merged. If you don't want to use it, then don't CONFIG > it in. Violently agreed. And really, the only semi-technical argument against the opportunistic suspend feature I've seen so far in this thread is that it _may_ _be_ possible to achieve the same goal in a different way. If I don't see anything more serious than that, I will take the patchset and push it to Linus (patches [1-6/8] from version 7 to be precise, as soon as the changelogs are improved as requested). Thanks, Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
