[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200623133512.GA2783@bug>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 15:35:12 +0200
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: Andrzej Pietrasiewicz <andrzej.p@...labora.com>
Cc: linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org, patches@...nsource.cirrus.com,
ibm-acpi-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
Kukjin Kim <kgene@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@....com>,
Vladimir Zapolskiy <vz@...ia.com>,
Sylvain Lemieux <slemieux.tyco@...il.com>,
Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
Barry Song <baohua@...nel.org>,
Michael Hennerich <michael.hennerich@...log.com>,
Nick Dyer <nick@...anahar.org>,
Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
Sangwon Jee <jeesw@...fas.com>,
Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@...hat.com>,
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <ibm-acpi@....eng.br>,
Micha?? Miros??aw <mirq-linux@...e.qmqm.pl>,
kernel@...labora.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Input: document inhibiting
Hi!
> +Inhibiting input devices
> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> +
> +Inhibiting a device means ignoring input events from it. As such it is about maintaining
> +relationships with input handlers - either already existing relationships, or relationships
> +to be established while the device is in inhibited state.
> +
> +If a device is inhibited, no input handler will receive events from it.
> +
> +The fact that nobody wants events from the device is exploited further, by calling device's
> +close() (if there are users) and open() (if there are users) on inhibit and uninhibit
> +operations, respectively. Indeed, the meaning of close() is to stop providing events
> +to the input core and that of open() is to start providing events to the input core.
> +
> +Calling the device's close() method on inhibit (if there are users) allows the driver
> +to save power. Either by directly powering down the device or by releasing the
> +runtime-pm reference it got in open() when the driver is using runtime-pm.
> +
> +Inhibiting and uninhibiting are orthogonal to opening and closing the device by input
> +handlers. Userspace might want to inhibit a device in anticipation before any handler is
> +positively matched against it.
Ok.
> +Inhibiting and uninhibiting are orthogonal to device's being a wakeup source, too.
> Being a +wakeup source plays a role when the system is sleeping, not when the system is
> operating. +How drivers should program their interaction between inhibiting, sleeping
> and being a wakeup +source is driver-specific. + +Taking the analogy with the network
I don't believe making interaction driver-specific is good idea. We should decide
what reasonable behaviour is and then make drivers implement that...
Best regards,
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists