From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755478AbZHPQEN (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 Aug 2009 12:04:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754882AbZHPQEM (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 Aug 2009 12:04:12 -0400 Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:50962 "EHLO cavan.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751846AbZHPQEM (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 Aug 2009 12:04:12 -0400 Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 17:04:06 +0100 From: Matthew Garrett To: Alan Stern Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, Greg KH , LKML , Linux-pm mailing list Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [RFC] PCI: Runtime power management Message-ID: <20090816160406.GA10163@srcf.ucam.org> References: <200908152321.53283.rjw@sisk.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: mjg59@cavan.codon.org.uk X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on cavan.codon.org.uk); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 11:57:53AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > On Sat, 15 Aug 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > Why would you ever want runtime_wakeup to be false unless > > > runtime_forbidden is true? Surely the point of runtime power management > > > is to be transparent to the user, in which case remote wakeup is > > > required? > > Matthew, what makes you think remote wakeup is required? Lots of > power-manageable devices don't support it at all (consider disk drives > or display screens). Sorry, I meant in cases where remote wakeup is a sensible concept. For things like storage there's obviously no reason to require it, but for something like USB the absence of remote wakeup would effectively break the driver for most users. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org