[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200911162152.38333.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:52:38 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux PCI <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>,
Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@...com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/10] PM: Add flag for devices capable of generating run-time wake-up events
On Monday 16 November 2009, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl>
> >
> > Apparently, there are devices that can wake up the system from sleep
> > states and yet are incapable of generating wake-up events at run
> > time. Thus, introduce a flag indicating if given device is capable
> > of generating run-time wake-up events.
>
> This raises the question: Who is responsible for setting the new
> flag? The code that registers the device?
Yes, in general. The platform.
Actually, I needed it for PCI, but I thought it would be better to put it at
the core level.
> What if the kernel can't tell whether or not the device can generate
> runtime wake-up events?
Do you have any specific examples in mind?
> What if the user wants to override the kernel's setting? Should there
> be a sysfs attribute controlling the flag?
I have no plans for adding anything like that.
Rafael
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists