Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread, take three

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: David Brownell
Date: Saturday, August 14, 2010 - 11:15 am

--- On Sat, 8/14/10, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> wrote:



For ARM processors it's not unrealistic.  THey
tend to have idle states that place constraints on
peripherals and clocks which allow peripherals to run independently of CPUs.

I recall for example various processors that allow
USB to continue operating in one or more idle states, if the right clocks are active (and RAM).
Similarly with some other peripherals.  It may be
desirable to have I/O active while CPUs are idle.

Not all low power states map to x86/ACPI models;
and Linux hasn't accomodated that reality well.



--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread, tak ..., David Brownell, (Sat Aug 14, 11:15 am)