From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752548AbZHOVV2 (ORCPT ); Sat, 15 Aug 2009 17:21:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752466AbZHOVV1 (ORCPT ); Sat, 15 Aug 2009 17:21:27 -0400 Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:43337 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752280AbZHOVV0 (ORCPT ); Sat, 15 Aug 2009 17:21:26 -0400 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [RFC] PCI: Runtime power management Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 23:21:53 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.0 (Linux/2.6.31-rc5-rjw; KDE/4.3.0; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Alan Stern , linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, Greg KH , LKML , "Linux-pm mailing list" References: <200908152254.23227.rjw@sisk.pl> <20090815205817.GA30254@srcf.ucam.org> In-Reply-To: <20090815205817.GA30254@srcf.ucam.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200908152321.53283.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Saturday 15 August 2009, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 10:54:23PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > runtime_wakeup - if set, the device is allowed to do remote wakeup at run time > > That could be represented as 'runtime_wakeup' under 'power' with the > > following values: > > * no value (empty file) is 'runtime' is 'disabled' > > * 'enabled' > > * 'disabled' > > To set/unset the user space writes 'enabled'/'disabled' to it, respectively. > > The default is set. > > Why would you ever want runtime_wakeup to be false unless > runtime_forbidden is true? Surely the point of runtime power management > is to be transparent to the user, in which case remote wakeup is > required? Well, this was exactly my point previously. :-) Still, although for the majority of devices 'runtime_wakeup' disabled would mean no runtime PM at all IMO, there may be devices that actually work without remote wakeup, although they support it in general. I can even imagine a scenario where this setting might be useful, like when we don't want a network adapter to be woken up from the outside. Thanks, Rafael