Re: Power-managing devices that are not of interest at some point in time

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/