On Monday, October 04, 2010, mark gross wrote: > On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 07:57:40PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > Hi, > > > > The following two patches are ready to go into linux-next from my point of > > view, so please let me know if there are any objections: > > > > [1/2] - PM / Wakeup: Introduce wakeup source objects and event statistics (v3) > > > > [2/2] - PM: Fix potential issue with failing asynchronous suspend > > > > Thanks, > > Rafael > > Sorry for the late response but, what user feed back will this provide > to the OS stack looking to put the system in a low power state? > > There are 2 cases I can think of: > 1) system wakes from an event that user mode needs to handle (i.e. key > press or phone ring or alarm events) > 2) system wakes (or more likely, is blocked from suspending) by a > kernel critical section, say if USB-OTG is connected. > > When wake's are of the type 1, then the power manager service could > simply wait for a user mode wake lock be taken and released from the > usermode before re-attempting to suspend. > > When the wakes are of type 2, a power manager service thread would need > to do a select on a system file and be woken up to re-try the suspend > after the suspend-blocking is no longer needed. IMO it is more convenient to implement that in a different way, but generally I think you're right. > Do you think I should cobble together an android PM driver that plugs > into your code to expose an ABI for the 2 cases listed above? Well, I'm not sure if I understand correctly, can you elaborate a bit, please? > Also, with this do we want to revisit a pm_qos class for "active" > systems? Or do you think thats redundant now? I don't really think the pm_qos for "active" systems is really necessary at this point. Thanks, Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
