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 15:18:34 +0100 Message-ID: <200703221518.35286.oneukum@suse.de> References: <200703221444.52065.oneukum@suse.de> <20070322135653.GA7693@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: <20070322135653.GA7693@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: Pavel Machek , Alan Stern Cc: linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-pm List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Am Donnerstag, 22. M=E4rz 2007 14:56 schrieb Pavel Machek: > > > 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? > = > Well, you should have audited USB drivers when enabling autosuspend... > But I believe you did that so you are pretty much okay. We audited them. Respectively, are auditing them. > (With autosuspend, you can get situation when request from userland > comes in even when device is suspended; some devices will need > fixing). Currently, such requests are ignored. Is there any problem with that? Regards Oliver