Hi! > > > > > Now, there is a issue of waking up userspace task, additional scheduling > > > > > and keeping CPU running longer than necessary for "uninteresting" keys. > > > > > This can be solved by implementing a subscription model which allows > > > > > filtering uninteresing events on a per-client basis at evdev level. > > > > > > > > Right. And for gpio_keys, this would be dine on the driver level. > > > > > > But the semantics are different - if done on driver level you'd be > > > affecting _all_ consumers of the device; what I want to be done only > > > affects owner of the file descriptor. > > > > Well, if _all_ consumers decide to ignore some key, we should be able > > to ignore it at driver level. > > The intesection of drivers allowing shut off individual buttons with > all consumers agreeing on not using a key would be pretty miniscule. Well; people want to do that on specialized hw/embedded sw. It could work there. > > And actually it may make some sense -- I do not think disabling irq > > during runtime is worth the effort, but disabling wakeup source and > > getting rid of unneccessary wakeup when system is suspended is > > probably worth it. > > I don't believe Mika's patches touched wakeup in any way. So it has > been strictly about wakig up processor to service that interrupt so far. I think it makes sense for wakeups; I doubt it makes sense for runtime - the power savings are just not big enough. -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
