On Thu, 1 Jul 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thursday, July 01, 2010, Alan Stern wrote: > > On Thu, 1 Jul 2010, Dominik Brodowski wrote: > > > > > Alan, > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 01:16:31PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > > > > As runtime PM becomes more and more popular, it seems likely that > > > > people will want to know whether or not their devices are getting > > > > suspended. Or if not people, then programs like powertop. > > > > > > > > For that reason, it seems to make sense to build the runtime_status > > > > sysfs attribute even when CONFIG_PM_ADVANCED_DEBUG isn't enabled. Do > > > > you agree? > > > > > > good idea; haven't looked at any dependencies yet, though... > > > > Reading through the code shows there is a drawback: For subsystems that > > don't implement runtime PM, devices will always show up as "suspended". > > That's not going to be very useful, unfortunately. > > > > Still, for subsystems that _do_ implement runtime PM, there doesn't > > seem to be any other way to learn the current status of a device. > > Perhaps we can rework the attribute to show "unknown" for devices that > have power.disable_depth > 0 ? That sounds reasonable. "disabled" is another possibility, but it doesn't express the right idea: The _status_ isn't what's disabled. Alan Stern _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
