Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932286AbaGSSV5 (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Jul 2014 14:21:57 -0400 Received: from mail-pd0-f170.google.com ([209.85.192.170]:36372 "EHLO mail-pd0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755560AbaGSSVz (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Jul 2014 14:21:55 -0400 From: Dmitry Torokhov To: Alan Stern Cc: Benson Leung , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Patrik Fimml , Bastien Nocera , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, "linux-input@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: Power-managing devices that are not of interest at some point in time Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 11:21:52 -0700 Message-ID: <2047146.r4vphTZhkk@dtor-glaptop> Organization: Google, Inc. User-Agent: KMail/4.13.2 (Linux/3.13.0-32-generic; KDE/4.13.2; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit 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 Saturday, July 19, 2014 01:59:01 PM Alan Stern wrote: > On Sat, 19 Jul 2014, Benson Leung wrote: > > > 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? > > > > It's possible that this could be a policy decision, ie, whether > > power/wakeup is set to enabled for those devices or not. > > However, I'd say that there's only one policy that makes sense in that > > case : wakeups should be disabled while suspended. > > > > If we inhibited the device during runtime to prevent stray input > > events from being generated, it wouldn't make sense to allow the > > device to potentially generate an accidental wakeup while suspended. > > That doesn't really make sense. If you're afraid of a device > generating spurious wakeup events when the lid is closed, you should > never enable it for wakeup. After all, one of the first things that > people often do after suspending their laptop is close the lid. That's a fair point, and I think should be done by default. But that does not change what Benson said - I think if we inhibited the device it should stay inhibited across system suspend, including being disabled as wakeup source even if it could be enabled as such. Thanks, Dmitry -- 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/