2010/6/6 Matthew Garrett <mj...@srcf.ucam.org>: > On Sun, Jun 06, 2010 at 12:00:47PM +0200, Vitaly Wool wrote: > >> Sure, but my point was, some non-trivial (still kind of natural for a >> smartphone) activities with the device will prevent it from suspending >> for quite some time. Even worse, the suspend wakelock will keep the >> whole kernel active, as opposed to powering off unused devices >> separately as it's done in runtime PM. Yep, I know about the "early >> suspend" type of thing; yet it's excess, not mainlined and lacks >> granularity. > > Holding a suspend blocker is entirely orthogonal to runtime pm. The > "whole kernel" will not be "active" - it can continue to hit the same > low power state in the idle loop, and any runtime pm implementation in > the drivers will continue to be active.
Yeah, that might also be the case, But then again, what's the use of suspend blockers in this situation? ~Vitaly -- 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
