On 6/17/20 3:18 AM, Andrzej Pietrasiewicz wrote: > Document inhibiting input devices and its relation to being > a wakeup source. > > Signed-off-by: Andrzej Pietrasiewicz <andrzej.p@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > v1..v2: > > - Addressed editorial comments from Randy > - Added a paragraph by Hans > > Documentation/input/input-programming.rst | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/input/input-programming.rst b/Documentation/input/input-programming.rst > index 45a4c6e05e39..7432315cc829 100644 > --- a/Documentation/input/input-programming.rst > +++ b/Documentation/input/input-programming.rst > @@ -164,6 +164,46 @@ disconnects. Calls to both callbacks are serialized. > The open() callback should return a 0 in case of success or any nonzero value > in case of failure. The close() callback (which is void) must always succeed. > > +Inhibiting input devices > +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > + > +Inhibiting a device means ignoring input events from it. As such it is about maintaining > +relationships with input handlers - either already existing relationships, or relationships > +to be established while the device is in inhibited state. > + > +If a device is inhibited, no input handler will receive events from it. > + > +The fact that nobody wants events from the device is exploited further, by calling device's > +close() (if there are users) and open() (if there are users) on inhibit and uninhibit > +operations, respectively. Indeed, the meaning of close() is to stop providing events > +to the input core and that of open() is to start providing events to the input core. > + > +Calling the device's close() method on inhibit (if there are users) allows the driver > +to save power. Either by directly powering down the device or by releasing the > +runtime-pm reference it got in open() when the driver is using runtime-pm. > + > +Inhibiting and uninhibiting are orthogonal to opening and closing the device by input > +handlers. Userspace might want to inhibit a device in anticipation before any handler is > +positively matched against it. > + > +Inhibiting and uninhibiting are orthogonal to device's being a wakeup source, too. Being a > +wakeup source plays a role when the system is sleeping, not when the system is operating. > +How drivers should program their interaction between inhibiting, sleeping and being a wakeup > +source is driver-specific. > + > +Taking the analogy with the network devices - bringing a network interface down doesn't mean > +that it should be impossible be wake the system up on LAN through this interface. So, there > +may be input drivers which should be considered wakeup sources even when inhibited. Actually, > +in many I2C input devices their interrupt is declared a wakeup interrupt and its handling > +happens in driver's core, which is not aware of input-specific inhibit (nor should it be). > +Composite devices containing several interfaces can be inhibited on a per-interface basis and > +e.g. inhibiting one interface shouldn't affect the device's capability of being a wakeup source. > + > +If a device is to be considered a wakeup source while inhibited, special care must be taken when > +programming its suspend(), as it might need to call device's open(). Depending on what close() > +means for the device in question, not opening() it before going to sleep might make it > +impossible to provide any wakeup events. The device is going to sleep anyway. > + > Basic event types > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Reviewed-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Thanks. -- ~Randy _______________________________________________ ibm-acpi-devel mailing list ibm-acpi-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ibm-acpi-devel
