From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: Discussion on device's runtime wake capability Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 21:57:23 +0100 Message-ID: <20121009205723.GA12385@srcf.ucam.org> References: <5073C2D0.1080900@intel.com> <9718124.Sj45DoTPo2@vostro.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:52604 "EHLO cavan.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754096Ab2JIU5g (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Oct 2012 16:57:36 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9718124.Sj45DoTPo2@vostro.rjw.lan> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Aaron Lu , Len Brown , Huang Ying , Zhang Rui , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 10:48:58PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Why do you think so? How can you be sure that those resources are not needed > to provide wakeup power to the device (or whatever generates the wakeup signal > on its behalf))? Right. For instance, on some Thinkpads turning off the power resources cuts power to the port entirely - there's no way to generate wakeups if there's no 5V line... -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org