On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 07:55 +0800, Yi Yang wrote: > > > I think that it would be much much better to place wake-up attributes under > > > corresponding PCI and PNP devices. > > > Probably it is even better to link this code to PCI code, so PCI drivers will be aware of ACPI. > > I like this idea, maxim. :) > > And that's what we actually did about half a year ago. > > > > Yi, > > Please refer to http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6892 > > and David's patch set here: > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm-commits&m=117701595209299&w=2 > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm-commits&m=117701866524935&w=2 > > You can have a look at this thread as well: > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-acpi&m=119982937409968&w=2 > > > I checked those patches you mentioned, they did bind two wakeup flag to > some extent, but they can't be exchanged to use and they are just partly > in current linus tree, two flags bind isn't in linus tree. > > According to my test on the latest linus tree, wakeup flag of > acpi_device hasn't any association with device's, i don't know if they > are the same thing. if we enbale or disable it manually, what will > happen? From source code, it is just a flag, it doesn't trigger any > event or hardware operation. > > > thanks, > > Rui > > > For example it will fix the 'EHCI instantly wakes up the system from S4' on my system, since here USB doesn't wake > > > up anything from S4, and ACPI tables correctly show that. > > > > > > If ehci driver was aware of that it could disable #PME on entrance to S4. > > > And we even can reuse its 'wakeup' attribute, thus enabling wakeup automatically. > > > > > > Going ever further, I think that it will be great to get rid of ACPI device tree, since > > > most acpi devices are ether PCI of PNP ones. > > > > > > Or, even better have a small ACPI tree, that will contain 'true' ACPI devices, like cpus > > > thermal sensors, buttons, etc. Any news on this? I ran into a problem with the current implementation: If one GPE is tight to several devices you get a message: echo XYZ >/tmp/acpi/wakeup ACPI: 'XXX' and 'XYZ' have the same GPE, can't disable/enable one seperately ACPI: 'YYY' and 'XYZ' have the same GPE, can't disable/enable one seperately and none of the devices are activated to be able to wake the machine up. Which I expect is wrong, all should be enabled/disabled then IMO, but it's probably not worth much fixing in /proc/acpi/... The correct interface to use seem to be: drivers/base/power/sysfs.c But this is rather broken? Here an output of /proc/acpi/wakeup and /sys/...: for x in `find /sys/ |grep wakeup`;do if [ $(cat $x) ];then echo $x; cat $x;fi;done /sys/devices/pnp0/00:04/power/wakeup enabled /sys/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1d.7/usb4/4-5/power/wakeup enabled /sys/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1d.7/usb4/4-1/power/wakeup enabled /sys/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1d.7/usb4/power/wakeup enabled /sys/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1d.7/power/wakeup enabled /sys/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1d.2/usb3/power/wakeup enabled /sys/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1d.1/usb2/power/wakeup enabled /sys/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1d.0/usb1/power/wakeup enabled trenn@stravinsky:/extern/trenn/packages/home:trenn> cat /proc/acpi/wakeup Device S-state Status Sysfs node PCI0 S5 disabled no-bus:pci0000:00 I still think (from comments in drivers/base/power/sysfs.c, not sure whether it really is that appropriate) it is wakeup sysfs file that should be used for this. I wonder why each device has a wakeup file, it should be enough to create them dynamically if wakeup enable/disable is supported for a specific device? Also a second file is missing from which state (S3,S4,S5) the device can wake the machine up. If there can be multiple devices for one GPE, this information (the power directory of multiple devices) could be linked together in sysfs? E.g. /sys/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1d.7/usb4/power/wakeup is a link to: /sys/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1d.2/usb3/power/wakeup If both are using one wake-up GPE. Also if the ACPI device caught through acpi_get_physical device is a PCI bridge, it should get evaluated what is behind the bridge and this device (e.g. a network card) should get the wakeup stuff set up, not the bridge? Does someone still look at this? If not, shall I or is it on some queue? Should this be discussed a bit more detailed first? Thomas -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
