From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oliver Neukum Subject: Re: Run-time PM idea (was: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/2] PM: Rearrange core suspend code) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 15:58:49 +0200 Message-ID: <200906081558.49860.oliver__38984.4296071262$1244469538$gmane$org@neukum.org> References: <20090608133215.GA15482@srcf.ucam.org> <20090608134647.GA14234@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20090608134647.GA14234@elte.hu> Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Ingo Molnar Cc: LKML , ACPI Devel Maling List , pm list List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Am Montag, 8. Juni 2009 15:46:47 schrieb Ingo Molnar: > ( Providing a way to _override_ those defaults is of course natural, > =A0 via /sysfs, should the user express an interest in tweaking it, or > =A0 should the kernel get it so wrong that a distro wants to work it > =A0 around. But your argument seems to be "push configuration and > =A0 handling into user-space" which is really backwards. ) If we agree that the default shall be that the kernel doesn't switch off features of the hardware for power saving by default, does this make a practical difference to keeping the configuration in user space? Regards Oliver