On Thursday, August 05, 2010, david@xxxxxxx wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Aug 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, August 05, 2010, david@xxxxxxx wrote:
> >> On Wed, 4 Aug 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>
> >>> Subject: Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread
> >>>
> >>> On Wednesday, August 04, 2010, david@xxxxxxx wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, 4 Aug 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>>>> In the suspend case, when you have frozen all applications, you can
> >>>>> sequentially disable all interrupts except for a few selected ("wakeup") ones
> >>>>> in a safe way. By disabling them, you ensure that the CPU will only be
> >>>>> "revived" by a limited set of events and that allows the system to stay
> >>>>> low-power for extended time intervals.
> >>>>
> >>>> the benifit of this will depend on what wakeups you are able to avoid by
> >>>> putting the hardware to sleep. Depending on the hardware, this may be not
> >>>> matter that much.
> >>>
> >>> That's correct, but evidently it does make a difference with the hardware
> >>> Android commonly runs on.
> >>
> >> Ok, but is there a way to put some of this to sleep without involving a
> >> full suspend?
> >
> > Technically, maybe, but we have no generic infrastructure in the kernel for that.
> > There may be SoC-specific implementations, but nothing general enough.
>
> well, I know that we have specific cases of this (drive spin-down, cpu
> speed, display backlight for a few examples), is it worth trying to define
> a generic way to do this sort of thing? or should it be left as a
> per-device thing (with per-device knobs to control it)
The ability to put specific devices into low-power states in certain
well-defined situations is clearly not sufficient. For one example, usually
you can easily put an Ethernet adapter into a low-power state when the network
cable is detached from it. It is not clear, however, what criteria should be
used for deciding to put that adapter into the low-power state when the cable
is attached to it (and open() has been called).
To mimic suspend you'll have to be able to put _all_ devices into low-power
states and shut down the interrupts that allow the monotonic clock to advance.
That's much more than simple runtime power management of selected devices.
> I thought I had seen discussion on how to define such a generic power
> management interface, and I thought the results had been acceptable.
If you have a pointer to that discussion, I'm interested. :-)
Thanks,
Rafael
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
