On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Paul Walmsley <paul@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: ... > > As I understand it, in the original Android implementation, the hardware > that they were using didn't have fine-grained power management. So > system-wide suspend made more sense in that context. But that shouldn't > be confused with the modern rationale for wakelocks: > > https://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/linux-pm/2010-May/025668.html > > "On the hardware that shipped we enter the same power state from idle > and suspend, so the only power savings we get from suspend that we > don't get in idle is from not respecting the scheduler and timers." > This is no longer the case. Both the Nexus-S and Xoom enter lower power states from suspend than idle. -- Arve Hjønnevåg _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
