From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: Add support for runtime power management of the hcd Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:59:58 +0000 Message-ID: <20091112165958.GA9389@srcf.ucam.org> References: <200911112324.58076.rjw@sisk.pl> <200911120841.11263.oliver@neukum.org> <20091112145121.GB6709@srcf.ucam.org> <200911121800.02383.oliver@neukum.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:53890 "EHLO cavan.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752914AbZKLRAM (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:00:12 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200911121800.02383.oliver@neukum.org> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Oliver Neukum Cc: Alan Stern , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, USB list On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 06:00:02PM +0100, Oliver Neukum wrote: > Exactly, but that isn't the same as needing two attributes exported to user > space. That is an absolute requirement only if we can't tell what a device's > capabilities are. Right. I don't see any reason for runtime wakeup to be exposed to userspace - it's an entirely orthogonal concept to system wakeup. The relevant userspace policy is whether or not runtime pm is enabled. > We could introduce a second attribute if we want to prevent drivers from > using remote wakeup to do runtime power management, but it is not > required. We could simply not give user space that choice. Absolutely. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org