Hello Arve,
On Fri, 24 Jun 2011, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> 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.
Just out of curiosity, is that due to some kind of hardware limitation on
those platforms, or is it because the software infrastructure for dynamic
deep idle hasn't been fully implemented in that subarchitecture code?
- Paul
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
