lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Sep]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend
On Tue, 8 Sep 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:
> > On Tue, 8 Sep 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> >> > > [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-input&m=140564626306396&w=2
> >> >
> >> > Purely as a matter of interest, in that email Rafael also mentioned
> >> > that he and I had discussed a way to disable remote wakeup during
> >> > runtime suspend. Oddly enough, the method we decided upon was to add
> >> > an "off" option to /sys/.../power/control. :-)
> >>
> >> Wasn't that /sys/devices/.../power/wakeup rather?
> >
> > Not the way I remember. Of course, it's possible that we misunderstood
> > each other at the time.
> >
> >> > It would not put the device into runtime suspend immediately, like you
> >> > are proposing. Instead it would mean the same as the "auto" mode,
> >> > except that remote wakeup should be disabled during runtime suspend.
> >> >
> >> > We never got around to implementing this, however.
> >>
> >> I don't think this is what we discussed then really.
> >>
> >> There is a fundamental problem with forcing things into runtime suspend
> >> from user space, because that may happen in a wrong time. In other words,
> >> the kernel can't guarantee that the device would actually be able to go
> >> into runtime suspend when requested.
> >
> > Exactly. What we discussed at LinuxCon wasn't forcing things into
> > runtime suspend; it was disabling remote wakeup during runtime suspend.
> >
> > And even though the topic was quite different from Irina's proposal, we
> > ended up settling on the same API (according to my recollection).
>
> So I remember that differently.
>
> My idea was to add a third value to /sys/devices/.../power/wakeup (in
> addition to "disabled" and "enabled") so user space can indicate that
> remote wakeup should not be enabled for runtime suspend for the device
> (since there's no way to indicate that today). I don't see how
> /sys/devices/.../power/control might help here to be honest.

You're right, that does make more sense than what I was thinking. My
memory must have gotten messed up. RAM corruption, no doubt... I
think I need an EDAC brain. :-)

Alan Stern



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-09-09 17:41    [W:0.182 / U:1.456 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site