On Monday 09 November 2009, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Firmware may support using GPEs for system wakeup without providing any
> runtime GPE handlers. This prevents the use runtime power management on
> these devices even if the hardware supports it. This patch adds support
> for providing default GPE handlers if the firmware doesn't, allowing us
> to implement runtime power management on machines where it would be
> otherwise impossible.
>
> This implementation adds basic support for Intel chipsets.
Do I think correctly it's based on top of the run-time PM patches?
> Signed-off-by: Matthew Garrett <mjg@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/pci/pci-acpi.c | 119 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 files changed, 119 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci-acpi.c b/drivers/pci/pci-acpi.c
> index dae90cc..7fff59c 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/pci-acpi.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/pci-acpi.c
> @@ -879,6 +879,124 @@ static struct acpi_bus_type acpi_pci_bus = {
> .find_bridge = acpi_pci_find_root_bridge,
> };
>
...
> +
> +static acpi_status acpi_pci_pme_notify(void *context)
> +{
> + struct work_struct *work = kzalloc(sizeof(struct work_struct),
> + GFP_ATOMIC);
kzalloc(sizeof(*work), ...) would save you a few characters. :-)
> +
> + if (work) {
> + INIT_WORK(work, context);
> + schedule_work(work);
Hmm. Not sure if putting that into pm_wq wouldn't be better.
Thanks,
Rafael
--
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
