On 28 July 2011 16:08, Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Aren't there? I have no idea. But if input devices are never > wakeup-capable, why do you name your function "input_may_wakeup()"? I guess i8042_may_wakeup() would be a better name for it. In this case, the only device in the hierarchy (i8042 -> serio -> input) that is marked wakeup capable is the i8042 device (and only via my patches). I'd welcome a better design. > I'm using a normal PC with PS/2 mouse and keyboard. It is set up with > the keyboard as a wakeup source but not the mouse. Of course, this > uses ACPI, which I assume isn't present on OLPC. It does depend on how the system is designed, yes. I suspect that the device that is actually marked as wakeup capable on your setup is not an input device, but rather another part of the /sys tree (perhaps part of the ACPI tree?). Also, I suspect that if your system is woken up by the keyboard, it loses the keypress which was used to wake it up. I'm definitely open to better ways of doing this. The key considerations are: 1. We only have control over wakeups at the i8042 level; i.e. we cannot ask for keyboard wakeups but not mouse. 2. Our keyboard and mouse hardware is guaranteed to be powered throughout suspend 3. The key press or mouse movement or click that woke the system must not be lost during resume. This means that all 3 layers (i8042, serio, input) must not reset or really do anything with the device during suspend/resume. Thanks, Daniel -- 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
