[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f2142d88-259f-302d-da61-e0fc39d1f041@suse.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2023 10:03:22 +0100
From: Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com>
To: "Limonciello, Mario" <Mario.Limonciello@....com>,
Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Michael Wu <michael@...winnertech.com>
Cc: "jikos@...nel.org" <jikos@...nel.org>,
"benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com" <benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com>,
"linux-usb@...r.kernel.org" <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-input@...r.kernel.org" <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Gong, Richard" <Richard.Gong@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] HID: usbhid: enable remote wakeup for mice
On 23.02.23 20:41, Limonciello, Mario wrote:
Hi,
>> As a system wakeup source a mouse that generates events when
>> it is moved, however, would make the system unsuspendable, whenever
>> even
>> a bit of vibration is acting on the system.
>> And as S4 is used in many setups to prevent an uncontrolled shutdown
>> at low power, this must work.
>
> At least in my version of the series, this is part of the reason that it was
> only intended to be used with s2idle.
Yes, that is sensible. If these patches are to be taken at all, that will
be a necessary condition to meet. But it is not sufficient.
> The kernel driver is well aware of what power state you're in the suspend
> callback (pm_suspend_target_state).
>
> What about if we agreed to treat this one special by examining that?
>
> If the sysfs is set to "enabled"
If user space needs to manipulate sysfs at all, we can have user space
tell kernel space exactly what to do. Hence I see no point in
conditional interpretations values in sysfs at that point.
We are discussing the kernel's default here.
> * During suspend if your target is s2idle -> program it
> * During suspend if your target is mem -> disable it
> * During suspend if your target is hibernate -> disable it
To my mind these defaults make sense.
However, do they make much more sense than what we are doing now?
> With that type of policy on how to handle the suspend call in place
> perhaps we could set it to enabled by default?
It pains me to say, but I am afraid in that regard the only
decision that will not cause ugly surprises is to follow Windows.
Yet, what is wrong about the current defaults?
> Turning on "autosuspend" for USB mice makes them behave pretty
> similarly to how they work when they're marked for remote wakeup.
Because it is exactly the same mechanism.
> On some mice the lasers turn off, and they only wakeup when you
> press a button or roll a wheel.
Yes. And _some_ is the exact problem. If we could tell, _how_ mice
react, this discussion were unnecessary.
Regards
Oliver
Powered by blists - more mailing lists