From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arve_Hj=F8nnev=E5g?= Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 00/11] Android PM extensions Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 17:17:04 -0800 Message-ID: References: <20090131074743.GA13633@bulgaria.corp.google.com> <200902010020.04696.rjw@sisk.pl> <200902010118.25810.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200902010118.25810.rjw@sisk.pl> 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: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Brian Swetland , linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, Nigel Cunningham List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 4:18 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > If the user forcibly puts the device into suspend, it's very much like po= wering > off. The kernel shouldn't prevent that from happening unless in error > conditions. No, when the phone is powered off, it is not expected to ring. When it is suspended it is expected to ring. > If incoming calls are supposed to wake up the system, then there are two > possibilities: > - the already started suspend sequence may be aborted and the system may = be put > into the low power state, I assume you mean high power state not low power state, or does low power state mean early-suspend state. If so, locking a wakelock will accomplish this. > - the system may be suspended and then immediately woken up. If you mean this as a general strategy, and not a specific outcome, then it does not always work (for the reasons I have already stated). -- = Arve Hj=F8nnev=E5g