On Sun, 20 Dec 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > Why would it be? > > The embedded controller may depend on it. Again, I say "why?" Anything can be true. That doesn't _make_ everything true. There's no real reason why PnP/ACPI suspend/resume should really care. We can try it. Not for 2.6.33, but by the 34 merge window maybe we'll have a patch-series that is ready to be tested, and that aggressively tries to do the devices that matter asynchronously. So instead of you trying to make up some idiotic cross-device worries, just see if those worries have any actual background in reality. So far I haven't actually heard anything but "in theory, anything is possible", which is such a truism that it's not even worth voicing. That said, I still get the feeling that we'd be even better off simply trying to avoid the whole keyboard reset entirely. Apparently we do it for a few HP laptops. It's entirely possible that we'd be better off simply not _doing_ the slow thing in the first place. For example, we may be _much_ better off doing that whole keyboard reset at resume time than at suspend time. That's what we do when we probe things on initialization - and the resume-time keyboard code is actually already asynchronous, it does that atkbd_reconnect asynchronously by queuing it as an event. So again, all these problems may not at all be fundamnetal problems: the keyboard driver does certain things, but there is no guarantee that it _needs_ to do those things. Turning the driver async may be totally the wrong thing to do, when we could potentially fix latency problems at the driver level instead. Linus -- 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
