On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 07:04:24PM +0200, ext Alan Stern wrote: >On Thu, 27 May 2010, Felipe Balbi wrote: > >> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 05:06:23PM +0200, ext Alan Stern wrote: >> >If people don't mind, here is a greatly simplified summary of the >> >comments and objections I have seen so far on this thread: >> > >> > The in-kernel suspend blocker implementation is okay, even >> > beneficial. >> >> I disagree here. I believe expressing that as QoS is much better. Let >> the kernel decide which power state is better as long as I can say I >> need 100us IRQ latency or 100ms wakeup latency. > >Does this mean you believe "echo mem >/sys/power/state" is bad and >should be removed? Or "echo disk >/sys/power/state"? They pay no >attention to latencies or other requirements. no, not at all. I think they are also really useful. But I also think in-kernel suspend blockers are unnecessary. I think runtime pm + cpuidle + cpufreq is well enough for all cases. We just need to give those three information about desired latencies. -- balbi DefectiveByDesign.org _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
