linux-kernel - Re: Power-managing devices that are not of interest at some point in time

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]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1407191039160.25162-100000@netrider.rowland.org>
Date:	Sat, 19 Jul 2014 10:51:37 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To:	Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@...gle.com>
cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Patrik Fimml <patrikf@...omium.org>,
	Bastien Nocera <hadess@...ess.net>, <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Benson Leung <bleung@...gle.com>,
	<linux-input@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Power-managing devices that are not of interest at some point
 in time

On Fri, 18 Jul 2014, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:

> > The area where it must interact with power management is wakeup, both remote
> > wakeup at run time and wakeup from system suspend.  In particular, there's
> > the question whether or not a device ignoring its input should be regarded
> > as a wakeup source.
> 
> I'd say no.

This raises an interesting question.  Suppose the system gets suspended 
while the lid is closed.  At that point, shouldn't wakeup devices be 
enabled, even if they were already inhibited?

Alan Stern

--
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/