On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 10:08:16PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > I refuse it because it will be supported by exactly 1 driver in the > > > > kernel - gpio-keys. It is the only driver that allows shut half of the > > > > "device" (because in reality it is a group of disjoint devices). It is > > > > the only case when "muting" a button means that IRQ is shut off abnd > > > > thus CPU can continue to sleep if that button is pressed. For all other > > > > devices that have 1 inettrupt per device, you still have to wake up, > > > > because you don't know whether the button that generated event is > > > > "important" or not. > > > > > > Fair enough. > > > > > > > Now, there is a issue of waking up userspace task, additional scheduling > > > > and keeping CPU running longer than necessary for "uninteresting" keys. > > > > This can be solved by implementing a subscription model which allows > > > > filtering uninteresing events on a per-client basis at evdev level. > > > > > > Right. And for gpio_keys, this would be dine on the driver level. > > > > But the semantics are different - if done on driver level you'd be > > affecting _all_ consumers of the device; what I want to be done only > > affects owner of the file descriptor. > > Well, if _all_ consumers decide to ignore some key, we should be able > to ignore it at driver level. The intesection of drivers allowing shut off individual buttons with all consumers agreeing on not using a key would be pretty miniscule. > > And actually it may make some sense -- I do not think disabling irq > during runtime is worth the effort, but disabling wakeup source and > getting rid of unneccessary wakeup when system is suspended is > probably worth it. > I don't believe Mika's patches touched wakeup in any way. So it has been strictly about wakig up processor to service that interrupt so far. -- Dmitry _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
