Hi! > @@ -114,3 +114,17 @@ Description: > if this file contains "1", which is the default. It may be > disabled by writing "0" to this file, in which case all devices > will be suspended and resumed synchronously. > + > +What: /sys/power/wakeup_count > +Date: July 2010 > +Contact: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> > +Description: > + The /sys/power/wakeup_count file allows user space to avoid > + losing wakeup events when transitioning the system into a sleep > + state. Reading from it returns the current number of registered > + wakeup events and it blocks if some wakeup events are being > + processed at the time the file is read from. Writing to it > + will only succeed if the current number of wakeup events is > + equal to the written value and, if successful, will make the > + kernel abort a subsequent transition to a sleep state if any > + wakeup events are reported after the write has returned. I assume that second suspend always succeeds? I can't say I quite like the way two sysfs files interact with each other, but it is certainly better then wakelocks... Maybe we should create sys_suspend()? -- (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
