On Wed 2007-12-26 21:23:37, Oliver Neukum wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 26. Dezember 2007 21:17:22 schrieb Pavel Machek: > > On Wed 2007-12-26 18:28:04, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > > Am Mittwoch, 26. Dezember 2007 00:07:31 schrieb Pavel Machek: > > > > Heute 00:07:31 > > > > > > > > This is RFC. It does not even work for me... it sleeps but it will not > > > > wake up, because SATA wakeup code is missing. Code attached for illustration. > > > > > > > > I wonder if this is the right approach? What is right interface to the > > > > drivers? > > > > > > IMHO you are making to many special cases. The system can be "sleepy" > > > if all devices can be runtime suspended and all CPUs are idle. > > > > Is there an easy way to tell if all the devices are runtime suspended? > > Do you really want to know whether they are suspended or whether they > could be suspended? If they are suspended. My plan is: let the drivers autosuspend on their own. If I see all of them are autosuspended, then it looks like great time to put whole system into s2ram... > > I guess I need to know from atomic context :-(. > > Urgh. suspend() must be able to sleep and can fail. That's ok. ... I also don't need to call any suspend() routines, because all the drivers are already suspended, right? And yes, I want device activity to prevent s2ram. If user is burning CD, machine should not sleep. If user is actively typing, machine should not sleep. My vision is: screen saver tells kernel keyboard need not be very responsive, at that point keyboard driver can autosuspend the keyboard, and if that was the last device, whole system sleeps. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
