Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757905Ab0HNSPs (ORCPT ); Sat, 14 Aug 2010 14:15:48 -0400 Received: from n3-vm0.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com ([67.195.23.156]:33061 "HELO n3-vm0.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1753271Ab0HNSPq (ORCPT ); Sat, 14 Aug 2010 14:15:46 -0400 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 395113.33137.bm@omp124.mail.gq1.yahoo.com DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=pacbell.net; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=J3tSyTFym5T8Zv8Cya7WBCnyfkdXdEO4kabr/rk6JK8hLBzCKvMGSQHBcZ/YwbZHyc51ZkS2NXr0LXaArzhSQyZdKaIu1rmFwvxfKnhih5k2gW24nsRJ2teZQlTV1/mfxX3i0iD6V+LYuXxTiFV2MlA4/BplkdKkdVMrMnkuOX8=; Message-ID: <302795.95811.qm@web180309.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: KyrccZkVM1lnXAFVtwVuP_M4B6Syn6x2fUnnC.2TCUUFeYh iWBwUHh.oO2SFrtgRLxnUQs6Xz0frnBcwoOzefU6uqwh6NJKUyKJQeOxw7aF BGtHiJ2zk1_BESmLzThYWtxHMvkO.JOEBAWxUSpWs2tglbaJKHZfmn9SEWD. exwrC8eQftGD4Bsrfd_nnE7Ogv_VKce6D.sUdKXnVoJ71rVxLHyrh8z51_TD Nvk1bDWc6TTaiBpqqB2sWPITyce6W4dGdndRXLqLSG8laPSbLPIsFGnVwLco N1O3c4qcWB7NjKJdEKERfFNo7kv9CZmg_5T4XGwwpXfiFPgGylZ8m8y6fAG_ m.nd6pvLwTn6tabsYvwA- X-Mailer: YahooMailClassic/11.3.2 YahooMailWebService/0.8.105.279950 Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 11:15:43 -0700 (PDT) From: David Brownell Subject: Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread, take three To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Arjan van de Ven Cc: Pavel Machek , Alan Cox , Felipe Contreras , "Ted Ts'o" , david@lang.hm, Brian Swetland , linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, arve@android.com, mjg59@srcf.ucam.org, florian@mickler.org, rjw@sisk.pl, stern@rowland.harvard.edu, peterz@infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de, menage@google.com, James.Bottomley@suse.de, swmike@swm.pp.se, galibert@pobox.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com In-Reply-To: <20100814095351.6a996187@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1029 Lines: 30 --- On Sat, 8/14/10, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > however I think you're making an assumption > that there is a real difference between a deep idle state and "off".... > > For modern x86 hardware, that assumption isn't > really valid. 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. -- 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/