From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oliver Neukum Subject: Re: [RFC] dynamic device power management proposal Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:44:51 +0100 Message-ID: <200703221444.52065.oneukum@suse.de> References: <200703220042.20471.lenb@kernel.org> <20070322132052.GA7221@elf.ucw.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20070322132052.GA7221@elf.ucw.cz> Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org Cc: linux-pm , Pavel Machek List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Am Donnerstag, 22. M=E4rz 2007 14:20 schrieb Pavel Machek: > > > That's not how the USB implementation works. =A0Although a timestamp = like = > > > the one you describe is going to be added. > > = > > I sort of like this idea -- it seems that it is low overhead. > > Of course it requires every device driver to be changed. > > Instead we could maybe hook the generic driver entry points > > and do this in the framework -- dunno if that is viable. > = > No, you can't get around changing all the drivers. > = > Generic entry points are for _system_ suspend, and if you try to abuse > them for runtime PM, you'll have to audit/change all the drivers. Is this your position regarding USB autosuspend, too? Should we use other methods than suspend/resume? Regards Oliver PS: Do we have _two_ pm lists?