Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Rafael J. Wysocki
Date: Friday, August 6, 2010 - 3:04 pm

On Friday, August 06, 2010, Alan Stern wrote:
...

Arguably not every PCI interrupt should be regarded as a wakeup event, so
I think we can simply say in the cases when that's necessary the driver should
be responsible for using pm_wakeup_event() or pm_stay_awake() / pm_relax() as
appropriate.

My patch only added it to the bus-level code which covered the PME-based
wakeup events that _cannot_ be handled by device drivers.

Thanks,
Rafael
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread, Rafael J. Wysocki, (Fri Aug 6, 3:04 pm)
Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread, Arve Hjønnevåg, (Fri Aug 6, 8:19 pm)
Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread, Rafael J. Wysocki, (Sat Aug 7, 1:44 am)
Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread, Rafael J. Wysocki, (Sat Aug 7, 1:49 am)
Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread, Arve Hjønnevåg, (Sat Aug 7, 3:02 am)
Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread, Arve Hjønnevåg, (Sat Aug 7, 3:23 am)
Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread, Rafael J. Wysocki, (Sun Aug 8, 12:17 pm)
Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread, Rafael J. Wysocki, (Sun Aug 8, 12:55 pm)
Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread, Arve Hjønnevåg, (Sun Aug 8, 10:09 pm)
Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread, Arve Hjønnevåg, (Sun Aug 8, 10:29 pm)
Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread, Rafael J. Wysocki, (Mon Aug 9, 7:53 pm)
Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread, Arve Hjønnevåg, (Mon Aug 9, 9:28 pm)
Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread, Rafael J. Wysocki, (Tue Aug 10, 7:11 pm)