From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 00/11] Android PM extensions Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 14:29:35 +0100 Message-ID: <20090204132934.GB1218@ucw.cz> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Arve Hj?nnev?g Cc: Brian Swetland , linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, Uli Luckas , Nigel Cunningham List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org > > For example, if one process tries to start an auto-suspend, and at the > > same time another process writes "mem" to /sys/power/state? Then the > > second process should take precedence and the system should go into > > suspend. When it wakes up again, the first process would still be > > waiting for an auto-suspend to occur. I suppose the details don't > > matter much because it's not likely to crop up often. > > I'll make a change to make any write to /sys/power/state disable > wakelocks. I'll probably also add a config option to remove > /sys/power/state. > > Before I post another patch series I have a few questions: > - Should I merge the wakelock and early-suspend api patches with their > implementations? (I initially implemented the api on top of the old > android_power driver, but we not longer use this) I think so. > - Once wakelocks are disabled by writing to /sys/power/state, is there > any demand for re-enabling wakelock support? I do not think wakelocks should be disabled. They should probably be ignored for echo mem > state, but disabling them sounds wrong. -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html