On Friday 28 May 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 1:44 AM, Florian Mickler <florian@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 May 2010 20:05:39 +0200 (CEST)
> > Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
> > To integrate this with the current way of doing things, i gathered it
> > needs to be implemented as an idle-state that does the suspend()-call?
> >
>
> I think it is better no not confuse this with idle. Since initiating
> suspend will cause the system to become not-idle, I don't think is is
> beneficial to initiate suspend from idle.
It is, if the following two conditions hold simultaneously:
(a) Doing full system suspend is ultimately going to bring you more energy
savings than the (presumably lowest) idle state you're currently in.
(b) You anticipate that the system will stay idle for a considerably long time
such that it's worth suspending.
Thanks,
Rafael
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
