On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 03:40 -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote: > 2010/5/26 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 03:25 -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote: > > > >> and on systems where the > >> same power state can be used from idle and suspend, we use suspend so > >> we can stay in the low power state for minutes to hours instead of > >> milliseconds to seconds. > > > > So don't you think working on making it possible for systems to be idle > > _that_ long would improve things for everybody? as opposed to this > > auto-suspend which only improves matters for those that (can) use it? > > I'm not preventing anyone from working on improving this. Currently > both the kernel and our user-space code polls way too much. I don't > think it is reasonable to demand that no one should run any user-space > code with periodic timers when we have not even fixed the kernel to > not do this. All I'm saying is that merging a stop-gap measure will decrease the urgency and thus the time spend fixing the actual issues while adding the burden of maintaining this stop-gap measure. _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
