[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1458581670.9609.5.camel@suse.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 18:34:30 +0100
From: Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Woojung Huh <woojung.huh@...rochip.com>,
Microchip Linux Driver Support <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lan78xx: Protect runtime_auto check by #ifdef CONFIG_PM
On Mon, 2016-03-21 at 10:57 -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> One possible solution is to export a sysfs parameter to prevent
> statistics collection (or more generally, to change the interval at
> which it occurs).
Surely, not performing a task can hardly be beaten in terms of power
consumption. That is not meant to be flippant, but I think these
issues are orthogonal. The question of how much to do doesn't
solve the question of doing efficiently what we do.
> But checking the runtime_auto flag is probably not a great idea. Even
> if it isn't set, collecting statistics is likely to wait up a device
> that otherwise would have remained suspended.
>
> Perhaps the best solution is to collect the statistics only when the
> device is not suspended or is about to suspend.
If we know when the next activity will come, why not pass this
information down?
Regards
Oliver
Powered by blists - more mailing lists