Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262791AbVCDCOG (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Mar 2005 21:14:06 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262804AbVCDCFu (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Mar 2005 21:05:50 -0500 Received: from ylpvm01-ext.prodigy.net ([207.115.57.32]:10147 "EHLO ylpvm01.prodigy.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262791AbVCDCBm (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Mar 2005 21:01:42 -0500 From: David Brownell To: linux-pm@lists.osdl.org Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH] Custom power states for non-ACPI systems Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 18:01:24 -0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: Pavel Machek , Todd Poynor , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20050302020306.GA5724@slurryseal.ddns.mvista.com> <422659B1.9090608@mvista.com> <20050303145522.GA3485@openzaurus.ucw.cz> In-Reply-To: <20050303145522.GA3485@openzaurus.ucw.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200503031801.25231.david-b@pacbell.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1514 Lines: 38 On Thursday 03 March 2005 6:55 am, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > In most of the cases I'm thinking of, it wouldn't be a user > > requesting a state but rather software (say, a cell phone > > progressively entering lower power states due to inactivity). I > > haven't noticed a platform with more than 3 low-power modes so far, > > Are not your power states more like cpu power states? For System-on-Chip devices it can be a fine line. Maybe six of the most important devices (including CPU) are in a low power state, but some others are still active. > These are expected to be system states, and sleeping system > does not take calls, etc... Pavel, remember that great big "wakeup" shaped hole in the current PM framework... ? Even ACPI sleep states support wakeup mechanisms, although not well under Linux (yet). One way a sleeping system could take a call is if some external chip raised a wakeup-enabled IRQ to wake up the system. And if going from deep sleep to normal operational state has a low cost, why shouldn't the system routinely enter deep sleep instead of going to CPU idle state? It's certainly the case that connecting the USB device to a host can un-gate that peripheral's 48 MHz clock and wake the system up from deep sleep. - Dave - 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/