On Thu, 27 May 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 06:49:18PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > ACPI provides no guarantees about what level of hardware functionality
> > > remains during S3. You don't have any useful ability to determine which
> > > events will generate wakeups. And from a purely practical point of view,
> > > since the latency is in the range of seconds, you'll never have a low
> > > enough wakeup rate to hit it.
> >
> > So PCs with current ACPI don't get opportunistic suspend capability. It
> > probably won't be supported on the Commodore Amiga either - your point ?
>
> Actually, the reverse - there's no terribly good way to make PCs work
> with scheduler-based suspend, but there's no reason why they wouldn't
> work with the current opportunistic suspend implementation.
How does that solve the problems you mentioned above ? Wakeup
guarantees, latencies ...
It's not a prove of the technical correctness of the approach if it
can provide a useless functionality.
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
