Alan Stern wrote: > On Mon, 20 Apr 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > >> On Thursday 16 April 2009, Michael Trimarchi wrote: >> >>> Drivers on embedded systems would be smart enough >>> to know that some of the devices should remain powered up, because >>> they could still be useful even when the CPU wasn't running. >>> The patch add the in_use attribute, that it can be used by the >>> the drivers to avoid power down during suspend. >>> >> OK, so the idea is that in_use will be set by the user space for devices that >> shouldn't be suspended. Is this correct? >> >> Assuming it is, I'd call the flag 'in_use' rather than 'is_inuse'. Also, if >> may_inuse is supposed to mean that we can set in_use for this device, I'd call >> it 'in_use_valid', I'd make it be unset by default and I'd allow the driver to >> unset it if it is going to react to 'in_use'. >> > > I don't see why two separate flags are needed. Why can't there be just > one? > > Also, I don't see why the in_use flag has to propagate down to all the > descendant devices when it is set. Why not let userspace be > responsible for that? > Yes it is possible to leave the possibility to the userspace. With this patch the userspace can deselect/select a tree in one write and eventually reanable subpart. This was the old design choice to use kernel to track dependences. > Finally, I don't like either name very much. This flag is supposed to > indicate that the device is being used in a mode that can run by itself > even when the rest of the system is suspended. Calling it "in_use" > doesn't express the crucial fact that the device is self-sufficient. > Ok I will change > Alan Stern > > > Michael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
