Hi! On Wed 2010-10-13 19:35:49, Ferenc Wagner wrote: > Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx> writes: > > >> For mobile devices it is not acceptable to filter events away at some > >> upper SW layer depending on the system state. The HW which generates > >> those events may not generate events at all to allow longer CPU sleep > >> periods. Actually, I question this, too. Obviously, touchscreen needs to be turned off, but how common are accidental button presses? > >> In ideal world it would be nice to control device states based on for > >> example user count. However, there are several listeners for input > >> devices and it is hard or impossible to have them all to follow overall > >> state transition (screen blanked etc.). Instead, there is some > >> system > > > > So you have mobile device; why is it impossible to just close the > > device when you do not want the events? I guess it is hard for generic > > distros, but on your phone, you should be able to modify Xserver to > > close touchscreen/keypad device when it is not needed... right? > > We'd had this discussion before... cf. eg. > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.input/9266/focus=9767 > > The problem was that several processes may have a device open, while > another process should be able to control the state of the device. > Maybe this could be solved by making the controlling process a proxy, > and having all "user" processes going though it. Then the Yes, and the proxy is normally called "X server". We already have it. > (proxy) process could open/close the device as it wants, letting the > runtime PM do its job. But this would mean duplicating some kernel > functionality (at least multiplexing) in user space. Yes. We already do that. Pavel -- (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
