On Tue, 22 Sep 2015, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Are you suggesting that > > this "inhibit" mechanism should involve a new callback different from > > Yes, there is no necessary relation to power management. If you put > your phone into your pocket, you will want to inhibit the touchscreen > even if that doesn't save power. > > > the existing runtime-PM callbacks? And when this new callback is > > invoked, drivers should cancel existing input requests (these devices > > are input-only) and go to low power? > > Cancel, yes, going to low power is a consequence which needn't bother > the power subsystem. Going to low power needn't involve the power subsystem? That sounds weird. > You need a callback. If there are spurious > events, the current heuristics will keep devices awake. > You must discard them anyway, as they are spurious. There's no point > in transporting over the bus at all. We can cease IO for input. > > > This would create a parallel runtime-PM mechanism which is independent > > of the existing one. Is that really a good idea? > > It isn't strictly PM. It helps PM to do a better job, but > conceptually it is independent. So my next question is: _How_ can this help PM to do a better job? That is, what are the mechanisms? One you have already stated: Lack of spurious events will help prevent unwanted wakeups (or unwanted failures to go to sleep). But Dmitry made a stronger claim: Inhibiting an input device should allow the device to go to low power. I would like to know how we can implement this cleanly. The most straightforward approach is to use runtime PM, but it's not obvious how this can be made to work with the current API. 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
