On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 10:24:19PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > On Sat, 20 Aug 2011, Mark Brown wrote: > > interfaces and let the subsystem and driver translate these into actual > > wakeup latency constraints: > > https://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/linux-pm/2011-August/032422.html > > https://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/linux-pm/2011-August/032428.html > > This is much easier for users as it translates into something they're > > actually doing (and in most cases the driver can make it Just Work) and > > it means that off the shelf applications will end up tuning the system > > appropriately by themselves. I'm additionally concerned that if we > > expose this stuff directly to userspace that's an open invitation to > > driver authors to not even bother trying to make the kernel figure this > > stuff out by itself and to instead tie the system together with magic > > userspace. > Can you give a couple of examples to illustrate these points? I think > it would help a lot to make the conversation more concrete. Examples of what? Latency constraints from drivers? That'd be things like Kevin listed in the second message linked above - the kernel knows it needs to wake up within a given time period in order to have time to do what it needs to do in response to a given wake source such as filling a buffer before it underflows. _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
