From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kevin Hilman Subject: Re: Suspend broken on 3.3? Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2012 10:10:50 -0700 Message-ID: <874nssde5h.fsf@ti.com> References: <87iphdeyaf.fsf@ti.com> <87zkalc75h.fsf@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from na3sys009aog124.obsmtp.com ([74.125.149.151]:39125 "EHLO na3sys009aog124.obsmtp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751701Ab2DIRKp (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Apr 2012 13:10:45 -0400 Received: by pbcuo1 with SMTP id uo1so6025180pbc.26 for ; Mon, 09 Apr 2012 10:10:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: (Paul Walmsley's message of "Mon, 9 Apr 2012 10:01:24 -0600 (MDT)") Sender: linux-serial-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-serial@vger.kernel.org To: Paul Walmsley Cc: "Raja, Govindraj" , Joe Woodward , linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, Felipe Balbi , neilb@suse.de, linux-serial@vger.kernel.org Paul Walmsley writes: [...] > I don't understand why a user would ever want to disable dynamic wakeups > on an in-use serial port via the sysfs power/wakeup file. (Disabling > wakeups from suspend is a different matter, of course.) The OMAP UART > driver needs hardware wakeups to function for FIFO drain wakeups, etc. > So to me it really doesn't make sense to disable those types of wakeup > events, ever. But maybe you know of some use-case that I don't? No, I don't have a use-case in mind. The more I try to remember why we added support to use the sysfs wakeup attribute to manage idle, the more I think we can probably drop it now. IIRC, it was added because on most boards we used to blindly initialize all the UARTs, including default wakeup settings (we still do this on many boards.) However, now that we have a real PM-aware driver for OMAP UARTs, this should all be handled from the driver itself, so the sysfs wakeup attribute should go back to only managing wakeups from suspend and wakeups during idle should always be on for in-use UARTs. Kevin