Am Sonntag, 26. September 2004 17:44 schrieb Alan Stern:
> On Sun, 26 Sep 2004, Oliver Neukum wrote:
>
> > > Well, "may_wakeup", versus "must_not_wakeup", and also
> > > probably "must_wakeup". Autosuspend idle mice only when
> > > they can take themselves out of suspend ... ;)
> >
> > Question.
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > Well, "may_wakeup", versus "must_not_wakeup", and also
> > probably "must_wakeup". Autosuspend idle mice only when
> > they can take themselves out of suspend ... ;)
>
> Question. Do you think that such interpretation should be left to
> drivers or s
Am Sonntag, 26. September 2004 05:22 schrieb Alan Stern:
> On Sat, 25 Sep 2004, David Brownell wrote:
>
> > > int suspend_subtree (struct device *top_dev, u32 level, int remote_wakeup);
>
> Is this supposed to be a replacement for or an addition to the existing
> "suspend-one-device" routine?
T
Am Sonntag, 26. September 2004 01:48 schrieb David Brownell:
> On Saturday 25 September 2004 3:16 pm, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > just looking through drivers/base/power/runtime.c it seems to me
> > that the approach is basically unworkable and cannot be made to
> > work. A sane API shoul
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004, David Brownell wrote:
> > int suspend_subtree (struct device *top_dev, u32 level, int remote_wakeup);
Is this supposed to be a replacement for or an addition to the existing
"suspend-one-device" routine?
> Well, "may_wakeup", versus "must_not_wakeup", and also
> probably "m
On Saturday 25 September 2004 3:16 pm, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> Hi,
>
> just looking through drivers/base/power/runtime.c it seems to me
> that the approach is basically unworkable and cannot be made to
> work. A sane API should probably be:
>
> int suspend_subtree (struct device *top_dev, u32 leve
