On Saturday, July 19, 2014 11:21:52 AM Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Saturday, July 19, 2014 01:59:01 PM Alan Stern wrote: > > On Sat, 19 Jul 2014, Benson Leung wrote: > > > > This raises an interesting question. Suppose the system gets suspended > > > > while the lid is closed. At that point, shouldn't wakeup devices be > > > > enabled, even if they were already inhibited? > > > > > > It's possible that this could be a policy decision, ie, whether > > > power/wakeup is set to enabled for those devices or not. > > > However, I'd say that there's only one policy that makes sense in that > > > case : wakeups should be disabled while suspended. > > > > > > If we inhibited the device during runtime to prevent stray input > > > events from being generated, it wouldn't make sense to allow the > > > device to potentially generate an accidental wakeup while suspended. > > > > That doesn't really make sense. If you're afraid of a device > > generating spurious wakeup events when the lid is closed, you should > > never enable it for wakeup. After all, one of the first things that > > people often do after suspending their laptop is close the lid. > > That's a fair point, and I think should be done by default. But that does not > change what Benson said - I think if we inhibited the device it should stay > inhibited across system suspend, including being disabled as wakeup source > even if it could be enabled as such.
This seems to be the best approach to me too. Rafael -- 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/
