From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: Add support for runtime power management of the hcd Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 23:26:06 +0100 Message-ID: <200911162326.06261.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <200911112324.58076.rjw@sisk.pl> <20091112165958.GA9389@srcf.ucam.org> <200911162226.02569.oliver@neukum.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:60033 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752623AbZKPWYo (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:24:44 -0500 In-Reply-To: <200911162226.02569.oliver@neukum.org> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Oliver Neukum Cc: Matthew Garrett , Alan Stern , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, USB list On Monday 16 November 2009, Oliver Neukum wrote: > 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? I'm not sure what the "don't care" value would be useful for. Besides, I don't really like tristates. :-) Thanks, Rafael