On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:31:05AM +0100, Oliver Neukum wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 11. November 2009 23:24:57 schrieb Rafael J. Wysocki: > > > Now, this does raise another point, which has been mentioned before. > > > To wit: devices really ought to have two remote-wakeup attributes, > > > one for runtime PM and one for system sleep. > > > > Yes, they do and there's another reason. Namely, there apparently are > > devices which can wake up the system from a sleep state and that are > > unable to generate runtime wakeup events. > > That is outright disgusting. Which devices do this? The ability for a device to raise an ACPI GPE and trigger a wakeup does not imply that there's runtime handling for that device's GPE in the system's ACPI tables. The default GPE handling code I posted for Intel helps here, but there's ample opportunity for us to find machines which have system wakeup support but no runtime wakeup support. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- 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
