On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 09:10:38AM +0200, Florian Mickler wrote: > Hi Rafael! > > On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 21:01:53 +0200 > "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Monday, June 28, 2010, Alan Stern wrote: > > > On Mon, 28 Jun 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> > > Subject: PM: Make it possible to avoid wakeup events from being lost > > I have nothing substantial to add, but just wanted to let you know that > this approach seems like a good alternative to me. As far as I can see > the userspace suspend-blocker interface could be expressed in terms of > this kernel facility which brings android closer to mainline. > > The only thing I haven't thought through yet is the 'maintain a discrete > set of constraints' vs 'just increment a number' thing. Especially if > what we loose in information through that (in comparison to 'the other > approach') is made up for by easier in-kernel-API. I _think_ if there > is any need for in-kernel-accounting (i don't know that) it could be > retro-fitted by using the trace event infrastructure? Adding ftracing hooks and some less invasive partial state or trace support to this and pm_qos is likely the next order of business. --mgross > > Cheers, > Flo _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
