Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 28 Sep 2011 02:09:17 +0200 (CEST) | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/6] [RFC] Proposal for optimistic suspend idea. |
| |
On Mon, 26 Sep 2011, John Stultz wrote: > Another use case I've heard about are systems that have firmware updates
Yes, I have heard about people wanting O_PONIES ...
> that are remotely triggered. Should the system go into suspend while the > firmware update is going on, you end up with a brick.
If someone came up with a firmware update mechanism which is not coping with unexpected interruption of any kind, then wakelocks are not making any difference.
Please collect the resulting bricks and shove them back to those who thought that remote firmware updates do not have to be engineered and the resulting fallout can be blamed on the kernel.
We have proper mechanisms in place to handle such stuff, but they need proper overall design and definitely a bit more brain usage than just yelling "wakelock".
Thanks,
tglx
| |