On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 10:09 PM, mark gross <640e9920@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 12:45:21AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> On Tuesday 01 June 2010, mark gross wrote: >> > On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 09:57:53AM +1000, Neil Brown wrote: >> ... >> > > So I would suggest modifying your proposal to simply create a new 'input' >> > > device. Any driver that supports wake-from-suspend queues an event to that >> > > device when a wakeup event occurs. If the device is open and has any queued >> > > events, then a suspend request such as 'echo mem > /sys/power/state' completes >> > > without going into full suspend. >> > >> > /me likes. >> > >> > > Then you just need to convince us that this mechanism can be used without any >> > > race problems. If it can, then it would certainly be a simple and >> > > unobtrusive approach. >> > >> > Lets find out. >> >> Simple question: how is that better than the Alan Stern's proposed approach? >> > I just saw Alan Stern's proposal, and have gotten some input form some > others. I can't say my patch represents a better Idea than what Alan > proposed. However; what Alan (and Thomas) are talking about is > effectively the same as the kenrel mode wakelock/suspend blocker thing, > and although it reuses existing infrastructure, it doesn't solve the > problem of needing overlapping blocking sections of code from ISR to > user mode. > I don't think your solution solves this either. -- Arve Hjønnevåg _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
