From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2015 17:16:35 +0200 Message-ID: <20151004151635.GC12684@xo-6d-61-c0.localdomain> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Alan Stern Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Oliver Neukum , Dmitry Torokhov , Irina Tirdea , Len Brown , Octavian Purdila , Ulf Hansson , "linux-input@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , Greg Kroah-Hartman List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org Hi! > > > > > >> > This suggests we forget about power/wakeup == "off" and introduce an > > >> > "inhibit" attribute instead. > > >> > > >> If we do that, can it still be regarded as a PM attribute? > > > > > > Why not? Consider this: Is there any reason to support inhibit when > > > CONFIG_PM is disabled? I can't come up with any. > > > > Well, the "I don't want any input from you now, because the phone is > > going into a pocket" case? > > But who would make a phone without CONFIG_PM? If you're sufficiently > unconcerned about power usage that you turn off CONFIG_PM, then you > probably don't care about getting excess input events either. Well.. .excess input events means that your phone now sends (meaningful, thanks to advanced predictions) messages to your friends... Better not do that. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html