> What is a "Correctly implemented driver" in this case? One that receives
> a wakeup event and then prevents suspend being entered until userspace
> has acknowledged that event? Because that's what an in-kernel suspend
> blocker is.
Kernel side maybe - but even then its a subset of expressing
latency/lowest level requirements. That bit isn't really too contentious.
You need a kernel object to hang a constraint off.
> ACPI provides no guarantees about what level of hardware functionality
> remains during S3. You don't have any useful ability to determine which
> events will generate wakeups. And from a purely practical point of view,
> since the latency is in the range of seconds, you'll never have a low
> enough wakeup rate to hit it.
So PCs with current ACPI don't get opportunistic suspend capability. It
probably won't be supported on the Commodore Amiga either - your point ?
> Suspend blockers are the mechanism for the
> driver to indicate whether the wakeup event has been handled. That's
> what they're there for. The in-kernel ones don't paper over anything.
Semantically the in kernel blockers and the in kernel expression of
device driven constraints are the same thing except that instead of
yes/no you replace the boolean with information.
So we go from
block_suspend() / unblock_suspend()
to
add_pm_constraint(latency, level)
remove_pm_constraint(latency, level);
And if Android choses to interpret that in its policy code as
if (latency > MAGIC)
suspend_is_cool();
else
suspend_isnt_cool();
that's now isolated in droidspace policy
Alan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
