Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755952AbaGSUBi (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Jul 2014 16:01:38 -0400 Received: from v094114.home.net.pl ([79.96.170.134]:54181 "HELO v094114.home.net.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1752256AbaGSUBh (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Jul 2014 16:01:37 -0400 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Dmitry Torokhov Cc: Alan Stern , Benson Leung , 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 22:19:55 +0200 Message-ID: <3454348.ZgJ1ZIlfsF@vostro.rjw.lan> User-Agent: KMail/4.11.5 (Linux/3.16.0-rc5+; KDE/4.11.5; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <2047146.r4vphTZhkk@dtor-glaptop> References: <2047146.r4vphTZhkk@dtor-glaptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Saturday, July 19, 2014 11:21:52 AM Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > 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. This seems to be the best approach to me too. Rafael -- 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/