lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jun]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [linux-pm] Run-time PM idea (was: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/2] PM: Rearrange core suspend code)
Date
On Wednesday 10 June 2009, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > > By the way, a legitimate reason for aborting an autosuspend is if the
> > > device's driver requires remote wakeup to be enabled during suspend but
> > > the user has disabled it.
> >
> > Do you mean the user has disabled the remote wakeup?
>
> Yes, by writing to the power/wakeup attribute.
>
>
> > > > > There should be a sysfs interface (like the one in USB) to allow
> > > > > userspace to prevent a device from being autosuspended -- and perhaps
> > > > > also to force it to be suspended.
> > > >
> > > > To prevent a device from being suspended - yes. To force it to stay suspended
> > > > - I'm not sure.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure either. Oliver Neukum requested it originally and it has
> > > been useful for debugging, but I haven't seen many places where it
> > > would come in useful in practice.
>
> I did think of one use for this feature. It's unique to USB,
> however...
>
> In Windows, you're not supposed to unplug a hot-unpluggable device
> without first telling the OS -- there's a "Safely Remove Hardware"
> applet. When you tell the applet you want to remove a USB device, the
> system disables the device's port and then says it's okay to unplug the
> device. Now Linux doesn't have any user API for disabling USB ports,
> but suspending a port has the same effect (the device can't distinguish
> a disable from a suspend).
>
> It turns out that some devices (MP3 players, for instance) have
> incorporated this into their design. They display a "Safe to unplug"
> message when their port is disabled or suspended. People like to see
> this message -- it makes them feel good about unplugging the device --
> and the only way to get it under Linux is by forcing the device to be
> suspended. :-)

Well, I'd very much prefer to have a separate mechanism for that.

> > The problem with it is that the user space may not know if it is safe to keep
> > a device suspended and if it is not, the kernel will have to ignore the setting
> > anyway, so I'm not sure what's the point (except for debugging).
>
> This falls into the category of "The user knows better". If the user
> specifically tells the kernel to suspend a device (rather than just
> letting it autosuspend), and this causes a problem, then it's the
> user's own fault.
>
> After all, who's really the master? Us or the kernel?

Oh, that depends on who the user is. If I'm the user, I'm the master, but in
case of a typical Windows user I'm afraid the kernel has to know better. ;-)

Best,
Rafael


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-06-10 23:17    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans