From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Phillip Susi Subject: Re: Wakeup and S states Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 11:11:28 -0400 Message-ID: <4DFA1D20.5020800@cfl.rr.com> References: <4DF8CBC3.5070801@cfl.rr.com> <20110615154457.GA13863@srcf.ucam.org> <4DFA09CB.9040909@iradimed.com> <20110616141517.GB15242@srcf.ucam.org> <4DFA13FD.6020304@cfl.rr.com> <20110616143703.GA15841@srcf.ucam.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([75.180.132.122]:51841 "EHLO cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755073Ab1FPPLa (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jun 2011 11:11:30 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20110616143703.GA15841@srcf.ucam.org> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Matthew Garrett Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On 6/16/2011 10:37 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote: > But you're complaining about the case where wakeup is enabled in a case > where it *is* possible. Userspace needs to take care of that. I am concerned about both cases. It would /like/ to be able to set the policy to wakeup only on state X and lower, and it seems like this would be better done in the kernel than user space, but it seems a kernel bug to enable wakeup in states that are higher than where it is supported.