On Saturday 21 February 2009, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote: > On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 1:47 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Saturday 21 February 2009, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote: > >> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > On Saturday 21 February 2009, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote: > >> >> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 7:56 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> > On Friday 20 February 2009, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 2:49 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> >> > On Friday 20 February 2009, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: [--snip--] > >> > The idea is to have both /sys/power/state and /sys/power/sleep at the same > >> > time, where /sys/power/state will work just like it does right now. Sure, > >> > there must be mutual exclusion between the two, but that's a matter of > >> > implementation IMO. > >> > >> If you want to only prevent suspend though one interface, you have to > >> also pass information to the driver about its suspend hook is being > >> called so it can conditionally return -EBUSY. The wakelock interface > >> requires less code in each driver. > > > > Well, I don't think so. Moreover, it requires you to spread wakelocks all > > over the place if you don't use the timeouted ones which, let's face it, is > > hardly acceptable. > > Your method does not reduce the number of places that has to be > modified. Any component where we add a wakelock, you have to add a > suspend handler to abort suspend when we would have held a wakelock. Well, maybe not, but it doesn't introduce entirely new API for device drivers. Instead, it extends the existing interfaces which I think is more appropriate. Thanks, Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
