On Thu, 2014-10-30 at 11:05 -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 03:45:02PM +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > > Actually Maemo people (on Nokia N900 and friends) got it right: unlike > > > android devices, it does not suspend to RAM at any point, and still > > > has reasonable battery life. > > > > Android devices don't suspend to RAM. Neither do Tizen devices AFAIK. > > Actually, Android devices have historically always suspended the CPU > whenever there wasn't a wakelock keeping the device to suspend. You > might not consider this "suspend to RAM" but in fact it uses the > identical kernel and hardware facilities as the legacy "suspend to > RAM" mechanism.
I wouldn't consider this "suspend to RAM", but that's because I expect the firmware to implement most of that. Anyway, that's splitting hair. > > I don't think anyone was discussing cell phones in particular in this > > thread, and knowing when user-space got woken up because of the baseband > > processor having information for us would still be useful. > > It matters because for laptops, what's important is whether the lid is > closed or not. Whether and how the laptop was "woken" is really > beside the point, as others have argued. Your counter argument is > that tablets don't have lids. But tablets are going to be using > schemes similar to Android, Tizen, and Maemo, and they are *not* going > to be using the legacy suspend-to-RAM model, because it's not > sufficiently good at power saving. There are plenty of tablets around that aren't Android devices. There are plenty of laptops that can be switched to a tablet mode for which this wouldn't apply either. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
