From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [patch] pm: fix runtime powermanagement's /sys interface Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 04:17:54 +0000 Message-ID: <20060106041754.GA2496@ucw.cz> References: <20060107000826.GC20399@elf.ucw.cz> <20060107075851.GD3184@neo.rr.com> <20060107102013.GB9225@elf.ucw.cz> <20060107130652.GB3972@neo.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0074602906000618141==" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20060107130652.GB3972@neo.rr.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.osdl.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.osdl.org To: Adam Belay , Alan Stern , Andrew Morton , Dominik Brodowski , Linux-pm mailing list , kernel list List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org --===============0074602906000618141== Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline > > > Also there's nothing "runtime" about the PCMCIA PM API. It's much more > > > like calling ->remove() as it disabled the device all together. > > > > It looks enough runtime to me. > > As was already discussed, we don't want to modify every userspace > application to check if the device it needs is "on" (resumed) or > "off" (suspended). It's just two painful with third party apps etc. > Therefore, the kernel needs to handle this more seemlessly. In my But we do not want to reactivate device on first access. Certainly not in PCMCIA case. Reactivation is separate problem. Pavel -- Thanks, Sharp! --===============0074602906000618141== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline --===============0074602906000618141==--