Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/2] PM / Sleep: Extended control of suspend/hibernateinterfaces

[Alan Stern]

On Sat, 15 Oct 2011, NeilBrown wrote:

> > One of the things Rafael didn't mention is that sometimes a kernel 
> > driver needs to prevent the system from suspending.  This happens when 
> > recharging over a USB connection.
> > 
> > There's no simple way for such a driver to communicate with a power
> > daemon.  The driver has to use something like the wakeup mechanism -- 
> > but currently that mechanism is optional.
> > 
> > Alan Stern
> 
> Certainly I don't expect a kernel driver to communicate directly with a
> user-space daemon.  It communicates indirectly through the wakeup_source
> mechanism.
> If user-space wants to block suspend, it talks to the suspend daemon (power
> manager) some how (dbus, lock files, sockets, signals, whatever).
> If the kernel wants to block suspend, it activates a wakeup_source (aka
> caffeine source) which the suspend daemon notices via /sys/power/wakeup_count.
> 
> But you say this wakeup mechanism is optional .... I don't see that.
> 
> It is implemented in drivers/base/power/wakeup.c which is included in the
> kernel if CONFIG_PM_SLEEP which is defined as
> 
> config PM_SLEEP
> 	def_bool y
> 	depends on SUSPEND || HIBERNATE_CALLBACKS
> 
> which seems to mean "enable this unless we don't have suspend and we don't
> have hibernate".
> 
> So it seems that the only time we don't have the wakeup mechanism, we also
> have no risk of ever going to sleep.
> 
> What exactly where you saying was "optional"?? I don't understand.

It's optional in the sense that user programs can bypass it.  They 
aren't forced to read or write /sys/power/wakeup_countm, and if they 
don't then the wakeup mechanism won't prevent the system from 
suspending.

Alan Stern

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/