John Watlington wrote: > I'm under the impression that our desire to stay with a stock operating > system is one of the big remaining limitations, but could be wrong.
My impression: Linux is capable of the desired behavior in general, via the cpuidle framework, which chooses to transition between sleep states based on the transition latencies, system activity, and upcoming timer events. Cpuidle separates policy from implementation by using pluggable backends in the form of cpuidle drivers that handle state transitions [1]. At present, the only cpuidle driver in the kernel is the ACPI driver (drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c). I do not know whether the XO's CPU deactivation, DCON, and timed wakeup system can be, or has been, mapped into an ACPI state. If ACPI is insufficient to represent the XO's behavior, then a new cpuidle driver will be required. I expect such a driver would be accepted into the upstream kernel. Writing it should not be hugely difficult, but I do not have enough experience to provide a good estimate of the amount of work required. --Ben [1] http://www.mjmwired.net/kernel/Documentation/cpuidle/driver.txt
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel