2010/6/6 Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>:
quoted text
> 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
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/