Am Donnerstag, 3. Dezember 2009 20:52:15 schrieb Alan Stern: > That's not necessarily so. If remote wakeup is disabled at a device > between the CPU and the source device, then wakeup events are indeed > allowed to get lost. For example, even though a USB hub may be enabled > for remote wakeup, if its host controller isn't then a wakeup event > won't generate an IRQ and so won't awaken the system. And in fact this > behavior may be desired by the user. After all, who would want their > laptop to wake up merely because a USB mouse was unplugged? That is no problem while the system is asleep. It is no good once the system wakes up. > > But the core doesn't > > know specifics. Unless you really want to overengineer this and compute > > the reliability of each path, resuming only those whose drivers have > > requested that remote wakeup be enabled is the best you can do. > > Isn't that what I agreed drivers should do? If the algorithm is clear and based only on remote wakeup, why would you want to involve drivers? I am afraid we are having a misunderstanding. Could you elaborate? Regards Oliver _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
