From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/13] PM: Add option to disable /sys/power/state interface Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 09:58:54 +0100 Message-ID: <20090209085854.GA28794@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> References: <1233802226-23386-1-git-send-email-arve@android.com> <200902090040.22364.rjw@sisk.pl> <200902090126.17899.rjw@sisk.pl> <20090209015333.GC24119@bulgaria.corp.google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090209015333.GC24119@bulgaria.corp.google.com> 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: Brian Swetland Cc: ncunningham@crca.org.au, u.luckas@road.de, linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org > [Arve Hj?nnev?g ] > > > > > Still, I'm very much interested in your reply to the last paragraph of my > > > message, the one that you removed. > > > > Yes we need access to wakelocks from user space. We also allow third > > party apps to use wakelocks if they request the right permission. This > > could include a music player keeping the device on while playing a > > song, or an pop email client using an alarm to download email every > > hour. > > To expand on this a bit: We don't allow arbitrary apps to directly grab > wakelocks with the sys interface -- instead a system service in > userspace manages wakelock requests on behalf of apps needing them. So in fact single wakelock for userspace would be enough for you? Cool, that certainly makes user<->kernel interface easier. OTOH "gcc now has to talk to system service" requirement is quite ugly. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html