On Sun, 10 Oct 2010, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > Will the driver use autosuspend for the 30-second delay? Then all you > > have to do is this: When the button is pressed, write 0 to > > power/autosuspend_delay_ms, causing an immediate runtime suspend. > > Then before turning the display back on, write 30000 to set the delay > > to 30 seconds again. You can leave power/control set to "auto" the > > whole time. > > > > This means messing up with the currently set timeout. If userspace could > have an option of "accelerating" expiring of the current timeout that > would be better. Accelerating the expiration of the timeout _is_ a form of messing with the currently-set timeout. It can't be "better". > > I don't like the idea of having an "off" setting in power/control. > > What happens if the user turns a disk drive controller "off" and the > > system needs to read or write something on that disk drive? > > > > I see. Well, for some devices "sicky off" "sticky off"? > maybe the one that makes most > sense. For others we may need an option that would put them into low > power mode while allowing bringing them back if they are needed. Can you give any examples where "sticky off" is really useful (other than just for debugging)? > In case of touchscreens/keypads they are most likely configured as > wakeup sources so when user actually tried to use the device they'll be > brought online. I agree, but it's important to distinguish between wakeup sources in particular and interrupt sources in general. As long as the system as a whole isn't suspended (it might be running or it might be in cpuidle), any interrupt source can cause a runtime resume. By contrast, when the system is suspended then only wakeup sources will cause anything to happen. Alan Stern -- 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
