On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 12:19:08 +0200
Vitaly Wool <vitalyw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2010/6/6 <da...@lang.hm>:
>
> > as an example (taken from this thread).
> >
> > system A needs to wake up to get a battery reading, store it and go back to
> > sleep, It does so every 10 seconds. But when it does so it only runs the one
> > process and then goes back to sleep.
> >
> > system B has the same need, but wakes up every 10 minutes. but when it does
> > so it fully wakes up and this allows the mail app to power up the radio,
> > connect to the Internet and start checking for new mail before oppurtunistic
> > sleep shuts things down (causing the mail check to fail)
> >
> > System A will last considerably longer on a battery than System B.
>
> Exactly, thanks for pointing out the specific example :)
>
> ~Vitaly
This does not affect suspend_blockers nor does suspend_blockers
interfere with that.
Suspend_blockers allow the system to suspend ("mem">/sys/power/state
suspend), when the userspace decides that the device is not in use.
So implementing suspend_blockers support does not impact any
optimizations done to either system A nor system B.
Cheers,
Flo
--
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
