On Thu, 27 May 2010, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Thu, 27 May 2010, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>
> > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 05:06:23PM +0200, ext Alan Stern wrote:
> > >If people don't mind, here is a greatly simplified summary of the
> > >comments and objections I have seen so far on this thread:
> > >
> > > The in-kernel suspend blocker implementation is okay, even
> > > beneficial.
> >
> > I disagree here. I believe expressing that as QoS is much better. Let
> > the kernel decide which power state is better as long as I can say I
> > need 100us IRQ latency or 100ms wakeup latency.
>
> Does this mean you believe "echo mem >/sys/power/state" is bad and
> should be removed? Or "echo disk >/sys/power/state"? They pay no
mem should be replaced by an idle suspend to ram mechanism
> attention to latencies or other requirements.
s2disk is a totally different beast as it shuts down the box into the
complete power off state.
Thanks,
tglx
--
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
