On Thu, 27 May 2010, Alan Stern wrote:

quoted text
> On Thu, 27 May 2010, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 05:06:23PM +0200, ext Alan Stern wrote:
> > >If people don't mind, here is a greatly simplified summary of the
> > >comments and objections I have seen so far on this thread:
> > >
> > >	The in-kernel suspend blocker implementation is okay, even
> > >	beneficial.
> > 
> > I disagree here. I believe expressing that as QoS is much better. Let 
> > the kernel decide which power state is better as long as I can say I 
> > need 100us IRQ latency or 100ms wakeup latency.
> 
> Does this mean you believe "echo mem >/sys/power/state" is bad and
> should be removed?  Or "echo disk >/sys/power/state"?  They pay no

mem should be replaced by an idle suspend to ram mechanism

quoted text
> attention to latencies or other requirements.

s2disk is a totally different beast as it shuts down the box into the
complete power off state.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/