From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [PATCH ver. 2] PM: describe kernel policy regarding wakeup defaults Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 00:42:07 +0200 Message-ID: <201006130042.08005.rjw@sisk.pl> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: 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: Alan Stern Cc: Linux-pm mailing list List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday, June 08, 2010, Alan Stern wrote: > On Tue, 8 Jun 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Tuesday 08 June 2010, Alan Stern wrote: > > > This patch (as1381b) updates a comment describing the kernel's policy > > > toward enabling wakeup by default. > > > > > > It also makes device_set_wakeup_capable() actually do something when > > > CONFIG_PM isn't enabled. It's not clear this is necessary; however if > > > it isn't then device_init_wakeup() and device_can_wakeup() should also > > > be do-nothing routines. Furthermore, I don't expect this change to > > > have any noticeable effect -- but if it does then clearly the old > > > behavior was wrong. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Alan Stern > > > > > > --- > > > > > > Rafael, I don't know if you got the earlier version of this patch. > > > > I did. > > > > > This one applies against 2.6.35-rc1. > > > > I assume I should replace the old patch with this one. > > Yes. If nothing else, the merge will be simpler. Applied to suspend-2.6/linux-next. Rafael