Re: [RFC][PATCH 00/11] Android PM extensions

["Arve Hjønnevåg" <arve@android.com>]

On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
>> > 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.
>
> Actually, I meant the working state.  Aborting suspend sequence always means
> go back to the working state.
>
> Also, I think the device that detected the incoming call should abort the
> suspend sequence by refusing to suspend.
>
>> > - 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).
>
> I meant a specific outcome.
>
> It may be impossible to abort suspend if the call comes in sufficiently
> late.

In that case, why are you against using wakelocks to abort the suspend
sequence? It covers the case where the driver knows that a call is
coming in, without any confusion about when the abort condition
clears. And, it avoids the overhead of freezing every process for an
operation that is doomed to fail.

-- 
Arve Hjønnevåg