Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

Hi! > > > > > >> > This suggests we forget about power/wakeup == "off" and introduce an > > >> > "inhibit" attribute instead. > > >> > > >> If we do that, can it still be regarded as a PM attribute? > > > > > > Why not? Consider this: Is there any reason to support inhibit when > > > CONFIG_PM

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

Hi! > > > > > >> > This suggests we forget about power/wakeup == "off" and introduce an > > >> > "inhibit" attribute instead. > > >> > > >> If we do that, can it still be regarded as a PM attribute? > > > > > > Why not? Consider this: Is there any reason to support inhibit when > > > CONFIG_PM

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Mon, 28 Sep 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Hi Alan, > > On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Alan Stern wrote: > > On Mon, 28 Sep 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > >> > This suggests we forget about power/wakeup == "off" and introduce an > >> > "inhibit" attribute instead. > >> > >> If we

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

Hi Alan, On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Alan Stern wrote: > On Mon, 28 Sep 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> > This suggests we forget about power/wakeup == "off" and introduce an >> > "inhibit" attribute instead. >> >> If we do that, can it still be regarded as a PM attribute? > > Why not?

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Mon, 28 Sep 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > This suggests we forget about power/wakeup == "off" and introduce an > > "inhibit" attribute instead. > > If we do that, can it still be regarded as a PM attribute? Why not? Consider this: Is there any reason to support inhibit when CONFIG_PM

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Sunday, September 27, 2015 07:02:17 PM Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! Hi, > > > > > That, or there may be an additional value, say "aggressive", to write > > > > > to the > > > > > control file in which case it becomes just > > > > > > > > > > echo aggressive >/sys/.../power/control > > > > > >

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Sunday, September 27, 2015 10:27:25 AM Alan Stern wrote: > On Sun, 27 Sep 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Saturday, September 26, 2015 11:20:50 AM Alan Stern wrote: > > > On Sat, 26 Sep 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > > > > So something like: > > > > > > > > > > > >

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Mon, 28 Sep 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Hi Alan, > > On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Alan Stern wrote: > > On Mon, 28 Sep 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > >> > This suggests we forget about power/wakeup == "off" and introduce an > >> > "inhibit" attribute

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Mon, 28 Sep 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > This suggests we forget about power/wakeup == "off" and introduce an > > "inhibit" attribute instead. > > If we do that, can it still be regarded as a PM attribute? Why not? Consider this: Is there any reason to support inhibit when CONFIG_PM

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

Hi Alan, On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Alan Stern wrote: > On Mon, 28 Sep 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> > This suggests we forget about power/wakeup == "off" and introduce an >> > "inhibit" attribute instead. >> >> If we do that, can it still be regarded as a

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Sunday, September 27, 2015 10:27:25 AM Alan Stern wrote: > On Sun, 27 Sep 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Saturday, September 26, 2015 11:20:50 AM Alan Stern wrote: > > > On Sat, 26 Sep 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > > > > So something like: > > > > > > > > > > > >

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Sunday, September 27, 2015 07:02:17 PM Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! Hi, > > > > > That, or there may be an additional value, say "aggressive", to write > > > > > to the > > > > > control file in which case it becomes just > > > > > > > > > > echo aggressive >/sys/.../power/control > > > > > >

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

Hi! > > > > That, or there may be an additional value, say "aggressive", to write > > > > to the > > > > control file in which case it becomes just > > > > > > > > echo aggressive >/sys/.../power/control > > > > > > That said I suppose that the "off" value for the "wakeup" file might also > >

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Saturday, September 26, 2015 11:20:50 AM Alan Stern wrote: > > On Sat, 26 Sep 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > > So something like: > > > > > > > > > > echo on >/sys/.../power/control (in case the device was > > > > >

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Saturday, September 26, 2015 11:20:50 AM Alan Stern wrote: > On Sat, 26 Sep 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > So something like: > > > > > > > > echo on >/sys/.../power/control (in case the device was > > > > already in runtime suspend with wakeups

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Saturday, September 26, 2015 11:20:50 AM Alan Stern wrote: > On Sat, 26 Sep 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > So something like: > > > > > > > > echo on >/sys/.../power/control (in case the device was > > > > already in runtime suspend with wakeups

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

Hi! > > > > That, or there may be an additional value, say "aggressive", to write > > > > to the > > > > control file in which case it becomes just > > > > > > > > echo aggressive >/sys/.../power/control > > > > > > That said I suppose that the "off" value for the "wakeup" file might also > >

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Saturday, September 26, 2015 11:20:50 AM Alan Stern wrote: > > On Sat, 26 Sep 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > > So something like: > > > > > > > > > > echo on >/sys/.../power/control (in case the device was > > > > >

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Sat, 26 Sep 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > So something like: > > > > > > echo on >/sys/.../power/control (in case the device was > > > already in runtime suspend with wakeups enabled) > > > echo off >/sys/.../power/wakeup > > > echo auto >/sys/.../power/control

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Sat, 26 Sep 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > So something like: > > > > > > echo on >/sys/.../power/control (in case the device was > > > already in runtime suspend with wakeups enabled) > > > echo off >/sys/.../power/wakeup > > > echo auto >/sys/.../power/control

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Friday, September 25, 2015 11:52:23 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Friday, September 25, 2015 05:13:04 PM Alan Stern wrote: > > On Fri, 25 Sep 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > On Friday, September 25, 2015 10:29:55 AM Alan Stern wrote: > > > > On Fri, 25 Sep 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Friday, September 25, 2015 05:13:04 PM Alan Stern wrote: > On Fri, 25 Sep 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Friday, September 25, 2015 10:29:55 AM Alan Stern wrote: > > > On Fri, 25 Sep 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > > We are missing the "no remote wakeup" bit now (well,

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Fri, 25 Sep 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Friday, September 25, 2015 10:29:55 AM Alan Stern wrote: > > On Fri, 25 Sep 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > We are missing the "no remote wakeup" bit now (well, there is a PM QoS > > > flag, > > > but it isn't very useful, so I'd

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Friday, September 25, 2015 10:29:55 AM Alan Stern wrote: > On Fri, 25 Sep 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > We are missing the "no remote wakeup" bit now (well, there is a PM QoS flag, > > but it isn't very useful, so I'd prefer to replace it with a "no remote > > wakeup" > > bit in struct

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Fri, 25 Sep 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > We are missing the "no remote wakeup" bit now (well, there is a PM QoS flag, > but it isn't very useful, so I'd prefer to replace it with a "no remote > wakeup" > bit in struct dev_pm_info or something similar). > > That is actually quite

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Friday, September 25, 2015 05:13:04 PM Alan Stern wrote: > On Fri, 25 Sep 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Friday, September 25, 2015 10:29:55 AM Alan Stern wrote: > > > On Fri, 25 Sep 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > > We are missing the "no remote wakeup" bit now (well,

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Fri, 25 Sep 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Friday, September 25, 2015 10:29:55 AM Alan Stern wrote: > > On Fri, 25 Sep 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > We are missing the "no remote wakeup" bit now (well, there is a PM QoS > > > flag, > > > but it isn't very useful, so I'd

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Friday, September 25, 2015 10:29:55 AM Alan Stern wrote: > On Fri, 25 Sep 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > We are missing the "no remote wakeup" bit now (well, there is a PM QoS flag, > > but it isn't very useful, so I'd prefer to replace it with a "no remote > > wakeup" > > bit in struct

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Friday, September 25, 2015 11:52:23 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Friday, September 25, 2015 05:13:04 PM Alan Stern wrote: > > On Fri, 25 Sep 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > On Friday, September 25, 2015 10:29:55 AM Alan Stern wrote: > > > > On Fri, 25 Sep 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Fri, 25 Sep 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > We are missing the "no remote wakeup" bit now (well, there is a PM QoS flag, > but it isn't very useful, so I'd prefer to replace it with a "no remote > wakeup" > bit in struct dev_pm_info or something similar). > > That is actually quite

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 10:55:52 AM Alan Stern wrote: > On Wed, 23 Sep 2015, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > > On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 11:22 -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > > > On Tue, 22 Sep 2015, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > > > > > > Cancel, yes, going to low power is a consequence which needn't

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 10:55:52 AM Alan Stern wrote: > On Wed, 23 Sep 2015, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > > On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 11:22 -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > > > On Tue, 22 Sep 2015, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > > > > > > Cancel, yes, going to low power is a consequence which needn't

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Wed, 23 Sep 2015, Oliver Neukum wrote: > On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 11:22 -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > > On Tue, 22 Sep 2015, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > > > > Cancel, yes, going to low power is a consequence which needn't bother > > > the power subsystem. > > > > Going to low power needn't involve

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 6:03 AM, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 11:22 -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > > On Tue, 22 Sep 2015, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > > > > Cancel, yes, going to low power is a consequence which needn't bother > > > the power subsystem. > > > > Going to low power

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Wed, 23 Sep 2015, Oliver Neukum wrote: > On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 11:22 -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > > On Tue, 22 Sep 2015, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > > > > Cancel, yes, going to low power is a consequence which needn't bother > > > the power subsystem. > > > > Going to low power needn't involve

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 6:03 AM, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 11:22 -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > > On Tue, 22 Sep 2015, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > > > > Cancel, yes, going to low power is a consequence which needn't bother > > > the power subsystem. > > > > Going to

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 11:22 -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > On Tue, 22 Sep 2015, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > > Cancel, yes, going to low power is a consequence which needn't bother > > the power subsystem. > > Going to low power needn't involve the power subsystem? That sounds > weird. Think of it

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Tue, 22 Sep 2015, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Are you suggesting that > > this "inhibit" mechanism should involve a new callback different from > > Yes, there is no necessary relation to power management. If you put > your phone into your pocket,

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 10:15 -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > On Tue, 22 Sep 2015, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > > Indeed. We can handle output to suspended devices by waking them. > > I don't see why this case is different. We are talking about input > > only. > > > > > The runtime-PM "usage" value for

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Tue, 22 Sep 2015, Oliver Neukum wrote: > Indeed. We can handle output to suspended devices by waking them. > I don't see why this case is different. We are talking about input > only. > > > The runtime-PM "usage" value for these devices is a little tricky to > > calculate. It should be

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Mon, 2015-09-21 at 16:02 -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > On Mon, 21 Sep 2015, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > > What happens if the "inhibit" control is turned on and the driver puts > > > the device into runtime suspend, but then an I/O request arrives? > > > > > > If the I/O request originated

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 11:22 -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > On Tue, 22 Sep 2015, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > > Cancel, yes, going to low power is a consequence which needn't bother > > the power subsystem. > > Going to low power needn't involve the power subsystem? That sounds > weird. Think of it

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 10:15 -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > On Tue, 22 Sep 2015, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > > Indeed. We can handle output to suspended devices by waking them. > > I don't see why this case is different. We are talking about input > > only. > > > > > The runtime-PM "usage" value for

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Mon, 2015-09-21 at 16:02 -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > On Mon, 21 Sep 2015, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > > What happens if the "inhibit" control is turned on and the driver puts > > > the device into runtime suspend, but then an I/O request arrives? > > > > > > If the I/O request originated

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Tue, 22 Sep 2015, Oliver Neukum wrote: > Indeed. We can handle output to suspended devices by waking them. > I don't see why this case is different. We are talking about input > only. > > > The runtime-PM "usage" value for these devices is a little tricky to > > calculate. It should be

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Tue, 22 Sep 2015, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Are you suggesting that > > this "inhibit" mechanism should involve a new callback different from > > Yes, there is no necessary relation to power management. If you put > your phone into your pocket,

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 04:02:01PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > On Mon, 21 Sep 2015, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > > What happens if the "inhibit" control is turned on and the driver puts > > > the device into runtime suspend, but then an I/O request arrives? > > > > > > If the I/O request

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Mon 2015-09-21 10:38:46, Alan Stern wrote: > On Mon, 21 Sep 2015, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > > In fact, then, what you need seems to be the feature discussed by Alan > > > > and me some time ago allowing remote wakeup do be disabled for runtime > > > > PM from user space as that in

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Mon, 21 Sep 2015, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > What happens if the "inhibit" control is turned on and the driver puts > > the device into runtime suspend, but then an I/O request arrives? > > > > If the I/O request originated from userspace, it means the > > user is violating the terms

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 01:32:38PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > On Mon, 21 Sep 2015, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > > It sounds like you are suggesting there should be a general mechanism > > > for userspace to tell the kernel (or the input core) to ignore all > > > events from a particular input

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Mon, 21 Sep 2015, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > It sounds like you are suggesting there should be a general mechanism > > for userspace to tell the kernel (or the input core) to ignore all > > events from a particular input device -- or even from all input devices > > -- thereby allowing those

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 12:34:56PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > On Mon, 21 Sep 2015, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 10:38:46AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > > > On Mon, 21 Sep 2015, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > > > > > > In fact, then, what you need seems to be the feature

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Mon, 21 Sep 2015, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 10:38:46AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > > On Mon, 21 Sep 2015, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > > > > In fact, then, what you need seems to be the feature discussed by Alan > > > > > and me some time ago allowing remote wakeup do be

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 10:38:46AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > On Mon, 21 Sep 2015, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > > In fact, then, what you need seems to be the feature discussed by Alan > > > > and me some time ago allowing remote wakeup do be disabled for runtime > > > > PM from user space as that

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Mon, 21 Sep 2015, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > In fact, then, what you need seems to be the feature discussed by Alan > > > and me some time ago allowing remote wakeup do be disabled for runtime > > > PM from user space as that in combination with autosuspend should > > > address your use case. >

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Wed 2015-09-09 11:20:25, Alan Stern wrote: > On Wed, 9 Sep 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > The best example and actually the very specific problem we want to > > > solve is handling touchscreens on a phone / tablet. When the screen is > > > turned off, it is ideal to suspend the

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

> > >> In fact, then, what you need seems to be the feature discussed by Alan > > >> and me some time ago allowing remote wakeup do be disabled for runtime > > >> PM from user space as that in combination with autosuspend should > > >> address your use case. > > > > > > I'd doubt that. Suppose you

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

> > >> In fact, then, what you need seems to be the feature discussed by Alan > > >> and me some time ago allowing remote wakeup do be disabled for runtime > > >> PM from user space as that in combination with autosuspend should > > >> address your use case. > > > > > > I'd doubt that. Suppose you

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Wed 2015-09-09 11:20:25, Alan Stern wrote: > On Wed, 9 Sep 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > The best example and actually the very specific problem we want to > > > solve is handling touchscreens on a phone / tablet. When the screen is > > > turned off, it is ideal to suspend the

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 10:38:46AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > On Mon, 21 Sep 2015, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > > In fact, then, what you need seems to be the feature discussed by Alan > > > > and me some time ago allowing remote wakeup do be disabled for runtime > > > > PM from user space as that

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Mon, 21 Sep 2015, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > It sounds like you are suggesting there should be a general mechanism > > for userspace to tell the kernel (or the input core) to ignore all > > events from a particular input device -- or even from all input devices > > -- thereby allowing those

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 01:32:38PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > On Mon, 21 Sep 2015, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > > It sounds like you are suggesting there should be a general mechanism > > > for userspace to tell the kernel (or the input core) to ignore all > > > events from a particular input

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 12:34:56PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > On Mon, 21 Sep 2015, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 10:38:46AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > > > On Mon, 21 Sep 2015, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > > > > > > In fact, then, what you need seems to be the feature

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Mon, 21 Sep 2015, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 10:38:46AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > > On Mon, 21 Sep 2015, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > > > > In fact, then, what you need seems to be the feature discussed by Alan > > > > > and me some time ago allowing remote wakeup do be

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Mon, 21 Sep 2015, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > In fact, then, what you need seems to be the feature discussed by Alan > > > and me some time ago allowing remote wakeup do be disabled for runtime > > > PM from user space as that in combination with autosuspend should > > > address your use case. >

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Mon 2015-09-21 10:38:46, Alan Stern wrote: > On Mon, 21 Sep 2015, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > > In fact, then, what you need seems to be the feature discussed by Alan > > > > and me some time ago allowing remote wakeup do be disabled for runtime > > > > PM from user space as that in

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Mon, 21 Sep 2015, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > What happens if the "inhibit" control is turned on and the driver puts > > the device into runtime suspend, but then an I/O request arrives? > > > > If the I/O request originated from userspace, it means the > > user is violating the terms

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 04:02:01PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > On Mon, 21 Sep 2015, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > > What happens if the "inhibit" control is turned on and the driver puts > > > the device into runtime suspend, but then an I/O request arrives? > > > > > > If the I/O request

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Wed, 2015-09-09 at 22:25 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > I'd doubt that. Suppose you put the phone into your pocket while > > > the device isn't suspended. The continuous stream of spurious > events > > > will keep it awake. > > Why would they be regarded as spurious then? They

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Wed, 2015-09-09 at 22:25 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > I'd doubt that. Suppose you put the phone into your pocket while > > > the device isn't suspended. The continuous stream of spurious > events > > > will keep it awake. > > Why would they be regarded as spurious then? They

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Wednesday, September 09, 2015 11:20:25 AM Alan Stern wrote: > > On Wed, 9 Sep 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > The best example and actually the very specific problem we want to > > > > solve is handling touchscreens on a

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Wednesday, September 09, 2015 11:20:25 AM Alan Stern wrote: > On Wed, 9 Sep 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > The best example and actually the very specific problem we want to > > > solve is handling touchscreens on a phone / tablet. When the screen is > > > turned off, it is ideal to

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Wednesday, September 09, 2015 06:02:02 PM Octavian Purdila wrote: > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > On Wed, 2015-09-09 at 14:22 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> > Note that when the screen is turned-on again, we want to resume the > >> > touchscreen so that it can

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Tue, 8 Sep 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Alan Stern wrote: > > On Tue, 8 Sep 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > >> > > [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-input=140564626306396=2 > >> > > >> > Purely as a matter of interest, in that email Rafael also

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Wed, 9 Sep 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > The best example and actually the very specific problem we want to > > solve is handling touchscreens on a phone / tablet. When the screen is > > turned off, it is ideal to suspend the touchscreen for two reasons: to > > lower the power consumption

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Oliver Neukum wrote: > On Wed, 2015-09-09 at 14:22 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> > Note that when the screen is turned-on again, we want to resume the >> > touchscreen so that it can send events again. > > Why is it impractical to close the fd for the

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Wed, 9 Sep 2015, Oliver Neukum wrote: > On Tue, 2015-09-08 at 10:44 -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > > 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

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Wed, 2015-09-09 at 14:22 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > Note that when the screen is turned-on again, we want to resume the > > touchscreen so that it can send events again. Why is it impractical to close the fd for the touchscreen? > > In fact, then, what you need seems to be the

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

Hi, On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Octavian Purdila wrote: > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 12:25 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote: >> > On 8 September 2015 at 22:56, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 9:35 AM, Oliver

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > Hi, > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 12:25 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > On 8 September 2015 at 22:56, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 9:35 AM, Oliver Neukum wrote: > >>> On Tue, 2015-09-08 at 01:10 +, Tirdea, Irina

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Tue, 2015-09-08 at 10:44 -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > 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. Hi, this proposal is

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Tue, 2015-09-08 at 10:44 -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > 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. Hi, this proposal is

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

Hi, On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Octavian Purdila wrote: > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 12:25 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote: >> > On 8 September 2015 at 22:56,

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > Hi, > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 12:25 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > On 8 September 2015 at 22:56, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 9:35 AM, Oliver Neukum

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Wed, 9 Sep 2015, Oliver Neukum wrote: > On Tue, 2015-09-08 at 10:44 -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > > 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

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Wed, 2015-09-09 at 14:22 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > Note that when the screen is turned-on again, we want to resume the > > touchscreen so that it can send events again. Why is it impractical to close the fd for the touchscreen? > > In fact, then, what you need seems to be the

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Tue, 8 Sep 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Alan Stern wrote: > > On Tue, 8 Sep 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > >> > > [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-input=140564626306396=2 > >> > > >> > Purely as a matter of interest,

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Wed, 9 Sep 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > The best example and actually the very specific problem we want to > > solve is handling touchscreens on a phone / tablet. When the screen is > > turned off, it is ideal to suspend the touchscreen for two reasons: to > > lower the power consumption

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Oliver Neukum wrote: > On Wed, 2015-09-09 at 14:22 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> > Note that when the screen is turned-on again, we want to resume the >> > touchscreen so that it can send events again. > > Why is it impractical to close the

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Wednesday, September 09, 2015 11:20:25 AM Alan Stern wrote: > On Wed, 9 Sep 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > The best example and actually the very specific problem we want to > > > solve is handling touchscreens on a phone / tablet. When the screen is > > > turned off, it is ideal to

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Wednesday, September 09, 2015 11:20:25 AM Alan Stern wrote: > > On Wed, 9 Sep 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > The best example and actually the very specific problem we want to > > > > solve is handling

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Wednesday, September 09, 2015 06:02:02 PM Octavian Purdila wrote: > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > On Wed, 2015-09-09 at 14:22 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> > Note that when the screen is turned-on again, we want to resume the > >> >

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

Hi, On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 12:25 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On 8 September 2015 at 22:56, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 9:35 AM, Oliver Neukum wrote: >>> On Tue, 2015-09-08 at 01:10 +, Tirdea, Irina wrote: >> >> [cut] >> this would work except for adding a sysfs

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On 8 September 2015 at 22:56, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 9:35 AM, Oliver Neukum wrote: >> On Tue, 2015-09-08 at 01:10 +, Tirdea, Irina wrote: > > [cut] > >>> this would work except for adding a sysfs attribute that would trigger >>> a runtime suspend while ignoring

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 9:35 AM, Oliver Neukum wrote: > On Tue, 2015-09-08 at 01:10 +, Tirdea, Irina wrote: [cut] >> 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? > > No. If we want

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

Hi, On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Alan Stern wrote: > On Tue, 8 Sep 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> > > [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-input=140564626306396=2 >> > >> > Purely as a matter of interest, in that email Rafael also mentioned >> > that he and I had discussed a way to disable

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Tue, 8 Sep 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-input=140564626306396=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

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

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].

RE: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

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

Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

On Tue, 2015-09-08 at 01:10 +, Tirdea, Irina wrote: > However, in the scenario I mentioned this is exactly what is happening. > When turning off the screen of a mobile device, the user space Would you explain why user space doesn't simply stop using those devices, which in turn will make

  1   2   >