From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oliver Neukum Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: Add support for runtime power management of the hcd Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:26:02 +0100 Message-ID: <200911162226.02569.oliver@neukum.org> References: <200911112324.58076.rjw@sisk.pl> <200911121800.02383.oliver@neukum.org> <20091112165958.GA9389@srcf.ucam.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20091112165958.GA9389-1xO5oi07KQx4cg9Nei1l7Q@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-usb-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Matthew Garrett Cc: Alan Stern , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , linux-acpi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, USB list List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Am Donnerstag, 12. November 2009 17:59:58 schrieb Matthew Garrett: > 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. That brings me to a possibly useless, wild idea. Do we want to tristate this? Is there any use in a "don't care" setting? Regards Oliver -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html