Re: klists and struct device semaphores
From: Dmitry Torokhov (dmitry.torokhov_at_gmail.com)
Date: 03/31/05
- Previous message: Len Brown: "Re: [RFC/Patch 0/12] ACPI based root bridge hot-add"
- In reply to: Patrick Mochel: "Re: klists and struct device semaphores"
- Next in thread: Alan Stern: "Re: klists and struct device semaphores"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:08:36 -0500 To: Patrick Mochel <mochel@digitalimplant.org>
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 10:26:36 -0800 (PST), Patrick Mochel
<mochel@digitalimplant.org> wrote:
> I don't understand what you mean. Even if a device is suspended, be it
> automatically after some amount of inactivity or as directed explicitly by
> a user, we want to be able to open the device and have it work.
>
> Conversely, we only want to automatically suspend the device, or allow the
> device to be explicitly put to sleep, if the device is not being used.
Well, the disagreement in definition of "being used". Quite often you
have a device "open" for extended period of time (inactive ext2
partition is mounted on a disk) but device is not really active. You
could power it down and only wake up when there is a read or write
request.
It looks like "open" and "close" are terms better suited for class
devices while power management is applied to the "real" devices.
-- Dmitry - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Previous message: Len Brown: "Re: [RFC/Patch 0/12] ACPI based root bridge hot-add"
- In reply to: Patrick Mochel: "Re: klists and struct device semaphores"
- Next in thread: Alan Stern: "Re: klists and struct device semaphores"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
