> > So PCs with current ACPI don't get opportunistic suspend capability. It > > probably won't be supported on the Commodore Amiga either - your point ? > > Actually, the reverse - there's no terribly good way to make PCs work > with scheduler-based suspend, but there's no reason why they wouldn't > work with the current opportunistic suspend implementation. If one works so does the other. > In some cases, not all. It may be a latency constraint (in which case > pm_qos is an appropriate mechanism), but instead it may be something > like "A key was pressed but never read" or "A network packet was > received but not delivered". These don't fit into the pm_qos model, but > it's state that you have to track. I never mentioned pm_qos, just latency *and* knowing what suspend states are acceptable. You need both. Alan _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
