From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oliver Neukum Subject: Re: [RFC] sleepy linux Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 10:41:29 +0100 Message-ID: <200712271041.30923.oliver@neukum.org> References: <20071225230731.GA29030@elf.ucw.cz> <200712262123.37152.oliver@neukum.org> <20071226203258.GE8094@elf.ucw.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20071226203258.GE8094@elf.ucw.cz> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Pavel Machek Cc: kernel list , Linux-pm mailing list , "Rafael J. Wysocki" List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Am Mittwoch, 26. Dezember 2007 21:32:58 schrieb Pavel Machek: > ... I also don't need to call any suspend() routines, because all the > drivers are already suspended, right? Well, you have a number of devices which cannot do runtime pm. They can do suspend/resume with the whole system. For them these operations mean saving/restoring state. So for these devices implementing autosuspend makes no sense. They would sensibly do only idle/busy detection. > And yes, I want device activity to prevent s2ram. If user is burning > CD, machine should not sleep. If user is actively typing, machine In these cases the devices involved should report themselves busy, shouldn't they? > should not sleep. My vision is: screen saver tells kernel keyboard > need not be very responsive, at that point keyboard driver can > autosuspend the keyboard, and if that was the last device, whole > system sleeps. We lack a notion of telling devices that they are opened only for detecting wakeups. Currently a driver has to assume that an opened device has to be fully functional. Regards Oliver