Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755367AbaGSOvk (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Jul 2014 10:51:40 -0400 Received: from netrider.rowland.org ([192.131.102.5]:55717 "HELO netrider.rowland.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1754409AbaGSOvi (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Jul 2014 10:51:38 -0400 Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 10:51:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Alan Stern X-X-Sender: stern@netrider.rowland.org To: Dmitry Torokhov cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Patrik Fimml , Bastien Nocera , , Benson Leung , , Subject: Re: Power-managing devices that are not of interest at some point in time In-Reply-To: <1451627.FURGiR949u@dtor-glaptop> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 18 Jul 2014, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > The area where it must interact with power management is wakeup, both remote > > wakeup at run time and wakeup from system suspend. In particular, there's > > the question whether or not a device ignoring its input should be regarded > > as a wakeup source. > > I'd say no. This raises an interesting question. Suppose the system gets suspended while the lid is closed. At that point, shouldn't wakeup devices be enabled, even if they were already inhibited? Alan Stern -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/