On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 06:00:02PM +0100, Oliver Neukum wrote: > Exactly, but that isn't the same as needing two attributes exported to user > space. That is an absolute requirement only if we can't tell what a device's > capabilities are. Right. I don't see any reason for runtime wakeup to be exposed to userspace - it's an entirely orthogonal concept to system wakeup. The relevant userspace policy is whether or not runtime pm is enabled. > We could introduce a second attribute if we want to prevent drivers from > using remote wakeup to do runtime power management, but it is not > required. We could simply not give user space that choice. Absolutely. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
