On Thu, 27 May 2010, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Thu, 27 May 2010, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> > Crap. Stop beating on those lost wakeup events. If we lose them then
> > the drivers are broken and do not handle the switch over correctly. Or
> > the suspend mechanism is broken as it does not evaluate the system
> > state correctly. Blockers are just papering over that w/o tackling the
> > real problem.
>
> That's the point -- suspend does not evaluate the system state
> correctly because it doesn't have the necessary information. Suspend
> blockers are a way of providing it that information. They don't paper
> over the problem; they solve it.
Nonsense. The system state is well defined when a event is pending and
we just have to say good bye to the idea that forced suspend is a good
solution. It's not as it does not guarantee the event processing in
badly written apps and it does move the power consumption to a later
point in time for those apps which acquire/drop the blockers.
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
