On Fri, 28 May 2010 04:35:34 -0700 Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 2010/5/28 Florian Mickler <florian@xxxxxxxxxxx>: > > It sounds like it could save some duplication of effort to integrate > > suspend into the idle-framework. "Purpose-fulness" could be just > > another measure of "idle". > > > > To me idle means that no threads are ready to run and no interrupts are pending. I misused the term "idle". I tried to express this by "quoting" it. > > I don't think we can plug suspend in as a cpu idle state. 1. we want > to suspend even the cpu is not idle. 2. starting suspend will cause > the cpu to not be idle. > yeah. it would have to move out of the cpu-specific context. it would be a more general "system-state" thing. if the properties of the state's are well expressed, it does not matter that starting suspend will cause the cpu to not be idle, because our target-state(suspend) has better properties than any other state. (or maybe there needs to be a "state-transition-in-flight" flag.) if we take the "approximated duration of staying in that state" into account, we could provoke the pm-framework to always suspend if no constraint(i.e. blocker) is there. But really. I think I can't implement something like that. Also I really have _no_ idea how much work this would be. _And_ I am not really shure if this is a better approach than the current solution. Just an idea. Cheers, Flo _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
