On Sun, Jun 06, 2010 at 12:00:47PM +0200, Vitaly Wool wrote: > Sure, but my point was, some non-trivial (still kind of natural for a > smartphone) activities with the device will prevent it from suspending > for quite some time. Even worse, the suspend wakelock will keep the > whole kernel active, as opposed to powering off unused devices > separately as it's done in runtime PM. Yep, I know about the "early > suspend" type of thing; yet it's excess, not mainlined and lacks > granularity. Holding a suspend blocker is entirely orthogonal to runtime pm. The "whole kernel" will not be "active" - it can continue to hit the same low power state in the idle loop, and any runtime pm implementation in the drivers will continue to be active. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
