Hi,
On 16-02-18 17:49, Brian Norris wrote:
+ Benson (and there are probably others that know better answers)
Hi,
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 09:26:37AM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
Going a bit off-topic here, so changed the subject.
I will reply on topic in another mail.
On 16-02-18 03:27, Brian Norris wrote:
I use a set of udev rules that manually whitelist devices for
autosuspend. You can see it here:
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/platform2/+/43728a93f6de137006c6b92fbb2a7cc4f353c9bf/power_manager/udev/gen_autosuspend_rules.py#83
You'll find at least one Rome chip in there.
Oh, that is a very interesting link for the work I've been doing to
improve Linux power-consumption in general:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ImprovedLaptopBatteryLife
I was actually planning on at least doing such a list for WWAN modems,
for btusb my approach has been to just enable it everywhere
(except for QCA devices as I got bugreports for those).
Note that I plan to eventually submit this whitelist to the
udev rules which are part of systemd upstream, so if chromeos
is using systemd too, this is something to be aware of for you.
Chrome OS does not currently use systemd, but thanks for the heads up.
Question, is the white-listing of the root and rate-limiting
hubs really necessary? I thought these have this enabled by default?
This list is old and maintained by several of my team, originating from
quite a ways back (i.e., much older kernels). It's quite possible that
some of it is redundant today.
Ok, I double checked and it seems that explicitly setting power/control
to auto for any USB hub is not necessary as they all default to auto
now.
So FWIW you may want to consider removing this.
Regards,
Hans