linux-kernel - Re: [linux-pm] [RFC] PCI: Runtime power management

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 16 Aug 2009 17:04:06 +0100
From:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux-pm mailing list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [RFC] PCI: Runtime power management

On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 11:57:53AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Aug 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 
> > > Why would you ever want runtime_wakeup to be false unless 
> > > runtime_forbidden is true? Surely the point of runtime power management 
> > > is to be transparent to the user, in which case remote wakeup is 
> > > required?
> 
> Matthew, what makes you think remote wakeup is required?  Lots of
> power-manageable devices don't support it at all (consider disk drives
> or display screens).

Sorry, I meant in cases where remote wakeup is a sensible concept. For 
things like storage there's obviously no reason to require it, but for 
something like USB the absence of remote wakeup would effectively break 
the driver for most users.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.org
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/