Re: [PATCH 1/5] introduce .wakeup_event ops

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, 2009-08-24 at 10:48 +0800, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 09:50:46AM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 05:23:16PM +0800, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > Yes, but that's fine because the PME state tells us exactly which device 
> > > caused the wakeup. We'll never get a bus notification if the wakeup is 
> > > triggered by UHCI on Intel.
> > Hmm, but here what we are talking about is if notification is always sent to the device
> > which invokes wakeup event.
> > I pointed out this isn't true because BIOS might sent notification to a pci bridge and
> > OS should scan devices under the bridge to check which devices invokes it by looking at
> > PME state. Looks you are talking about other things.
> 
> There are two cases:
> 
> 1) Notification is sent to a device. Since we know the device that 
> generated the event, we don't need .wakeup_event.
> 
> 2) Notification is sent to a bus. This will only happen if the device 
> supports PME, so we don't need .wakeup_event.
This depends on where you put the ACPI GPE code. If you put it to ACPI directory, then
we need a .wakeup_event at least in bus level.
ACPI is a generic framework, it can send wakeup event to any bus. It's
definitely better to put the wakeup GPE handling into ACPI directory.

--
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

[Index of Archives]     [Linux IBM ACPI]     [Linux Power Management]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux Laptop]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Resources]

  Powered by Linux