[lkml]   [2010]   [Jun]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [linux-pm] suspend blockers & Android integration
    On Fri, 11 Jun 2010, Mark Brown wrote:

    > On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 10:46:27AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
    > > On Fri, 11 Jun 2010, James Bottomley wrote:
    > > > The one thing that does look difficult is that these power constraints
    > > > are device (and sometimes SoC) specific. Expressing them in a generic
    > > > way for the cpu govenors to make sense of might be hard.
    > > Doesn't the clock framework already handle this sort of thing?
    > The clock framework is implemented independantly for each CPU.

    That's not an impediment, since drivers' requirements regarding which
    clocks remain running in which power states are necessarily
    platform-dependent also.

    On Fri, 11 Jun 2010, James Bottomley wrote:

    > Well, there are two elements to "this sort of thing":
    > 1. Allow a driver to request that a given clock not be turned off.
    > 2. Make the cpuidle governors aware of a pending "don't turn off X
    > clock source" so they can keep the system in a state where the
    > clock doesn't get powered down.
    > As far as I can tell from the code, neither currently exists at the
    > moment.

    Well then, can (or should) the clock framework interact with the
    pm-qos subsystem so that drivers don't have to worry about it?

    Alan Stern

     \ /
      Last update: 2010-06-11 22:51    [W:0.019 / U:0.324 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site