On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 6:36 AM, mark gross <640e9...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 11:12:39PM -0700, Brian Swetland wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 11:04 PM, mark gross <640e9...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> There are many wakeup events possible in a typical system -- >> >> keypresses or other input events, network traffic, telephony events, >> >> media events (fill audio buffer, fill video decoder buffer, etc), and >> >> I think requiring that all wakeup event processing bottleneck through >> >> a single userspace process is non-optimal here. >> > >> > Um doesn't the android framework bottleneck the user mode lock >> > processing through the powermanager and any wake up event processing >> > eventually has to grab a lock through this bottleneck anyway? >> >> For "high level" framework/application level wakelocks, yes, but lower >> level components beneath the java api layer use the kernel interface >> directly. >> > Oh. I thought everything went through > hardware/libhardware_legacy/power/power.c > who else is hitting /sys/power/* in the android user mode then?
I believe everything does -- that's the thin wrapper around the kernel interface (which will have to change slightly to meet the suspend_blocker device/fd vs wakelock proc/sys interface, etc), which is used by the powermanager service, the RIL, and any other low level code. At the App/Service level, wakelocks are provided by a java level API that is a remote interface to the powermanager. Brian -- 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
