On Saturday, July 19, 2014 12:19:39 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

On Friday, July 18, 2014 02:45:40 PM Dmitry Torokhov wrote:

quoted

On Friday, July 18, 2014 11:59:18 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

quoted

On Friday, July 18, 2014 02:26:21 PM Dmitry Torokhov wrote:

quoted

On Friday, July 18, 2014 04:09:46 PM Alan Stern wrote:

quoted

On Fri, 18 Jul 2014, Patrik Fimml wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 03:00:46PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:

[cut]

quoted

quoted

quoted

I'm not sure what the appropriate action for a video camera is anyway.
Should it go away completely, including its device? Should it be
there,
but certainly not be the default choice when there is an external
camera? I'm thinking along the lines of some application's settings
dialog here, where it might be desirable to still be able to select
the
internal camera for future recordings.

Of course, userspace could still decide simply not to
quiesce|deactivate|inhibit the device if that was desired.

There's some question about how much of userspace needs to get
involved.  Just the daemon that manages these configuration changes, or
other programs as well?  I guess that's not really our problem...

We need to provide means of implementing policy; the policy itself is not
really our concern ;)

quoted

In the end, it sounds like you're suggesting a new pair of PM
callbacks: ->deactivate() and ->reactivate(), or ->inhibit() and
->uninhibit().  Plus an optional (?) sysfs interface for invoking the
callbacks.

We do need sysfs interface so that userspace can talk to the devices in
question; and we also need to make sure that PM core is aware of the new
callbacks and provides guarantees about their interactions with system-
and
runtime-PM callbacks so that individual drivers do not have to sort it out
on their own.

A step back, please.

I have no idea why those need to be PM callbacks.

What you need really seems to be a way to tell a driver "ignore input from
this device from now on as it is most likely bogus".  A natural reaction of
the driver to that might be to stop processing input from the device and
then runtime suspend it (and prevent it from generating remote wakeup as
that may be bogus as well), but I don't see why the PM core needs to be
involved in that at all.

So that we do not need to handle cases like:

- I am already in idle state and request comes to inhibit, what do I do (in 
driver) or:

I'm not sure why being "suspended" or not matters here.  The PM core doesn't
know what physical state the device is in anyway and the driver or subsystem
(or another layer such as ACPI) has to track that.

Also it seems that it should be perfectly fine to ignore input from the device
without suspending it as well as it is perfectly fine to be suspended while
you are generally not ignoring the input (just because there is no input at
the moment, for example).

Yes, it make sense to suspend the device when you know you'll ignore input going
forward, but then if the real goal is to prevent bogus input from reaching
applications, then this isn't a power management problem even.

The area where it must interact with power management is wakeup, both remote
wakeup at run time and wakeup from system suspend.  In particular, there's the
question whether or not a device ignoring its input should be regarded as a
wakeup source.

Rafael