On Tue, 22 Sep 2015, Oliver Neukum wrote:

quoted

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.  Are you suggesting that
this "inhibit" mechanism should involve a new callback different from

Yes, there is no necessary relation to power management. If you put
your phone into your pocket, you will want to inhibit the touchscreen
even if that doesn't save power.

quoted

the existing runtime-PM callbacks?  And when this new callback is
invoked, drivers should cancel existing input requests (these devices
are input-only) and go to low power?

Cancel, yes, going to low power is a consequence which needn't bother
the power subsystem.

Going to low power needn't involve the power subsystem?  That sounds 
weird.

 You need a callback. If there are spurious
events, the current heuristics will keep devices awake.
You must discard them anyway, as they are spurious. There's no point
in transporting over the bus at all. We can cease IO for input.

quoted

This would create a parallel runtime-PM mechanism which is independent
of the existing one.  Is that really a good idea?

It isn't strictly PM. It helps PM to do a better job, but
conceptually it is independent.

So my next question is: _How_ can this help PM to do a better job?  
That is, what are the mechanisms?

One you have already stated: Lack of spurious events will help prevent 
unwanted wakeups (or unwanted failures to go to sleep).

But Dmitry made a stronger claim: Inhibiting an input device should 
allow the device to go to low power.  I would like to know how we can 
implement this cleanly.  The most straightforward approach is to use 
runtime PM, but it's not obvious how this can be made to work with the 
current API.

Alan Stern