On Tuesday, September 08, 2015 10:44:04 AM Alan Stern wrote: > On Tue, 8 Sep 2015, Tirdea, Irina wrote: > > > In the previous discussion thread , there were a couple of options > > mentioned, but none seemed to reach a consensus. You mentioned > > adding a "more aggressive runtime PM mode" [1]. I'm not sure how > > this would work except for adding a sysfs attribute that would trigger > > a runtime suspend while ignoring usage count. Would that be a > > better direction? > > > > Thank you, > > Irina > > > > [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-input&m=140564626306396&w=2 > > Purely as a matter of interest, in that email Rafael also mentioned > that he and I had discussed a way to disable remote wakeup during > runtime suspend. Oddly enough, the method we decided upon was to add > an "off" option to /sys/.../power/control. :-)
Wasn't that /sys/devices/.../power/wakeup rather? > It would not put the device into runtime suspend immediately, like you > are proposing. Instead it would mean the same as the "auto" mode, > except that remote wakeup should be disabled during runtime suspend. > > We never got around to implementing this, however. I don't think this is what we discussed then really. There is a fundamental problem with forcing things into runtime suspend from user space, because that may happen in a wrong time. In other words, the kernel can't guarantee that the device would actually be able to go into runtime suspend when requested. Thanks, 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/
