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 14:48:59 +0100 Message-ID: <200703221449.00225.oneukum@suse.de> References: <200703221339.l2MDdejg007459@olwen.urbana.css.mot.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200703221339.l2MDdejg007459@olwen.urbana.css.mot.com> 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@lists.osdl.org, pavel@ucw.cz List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Am Donnerstag, 22. M=E4rz 2007 14:39 schrieb Scott E. Preece: > There's nothing contrived or corner-case-ish about cyclic operations in > a world where media players, animations, etc., are utterly commonplace. > And latency may be ignorable in a laptop environment, but it absolutely > isn't in embedded devices, which users expect to operate immediately, as > though they were gear-driven rather than computer-driven. USB currently uses a delay and a switch in sysfs. Devices that have several power saving levels would also need an attribute to specify that. Is that acceptable? Regards Oliver