On Tuesday 09 of October 2012 22:44:10 Aaron Lu wrote: > On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 06:39:08AM +0000, Zhang, Rui wrote: > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: linux-acpi-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-acpi- > > > owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Aaron Lu > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 2:23 PM > > > To: Rafael J. Wysocki; Len Brown > > > Cc: Huang, Ying; Zhang, Rui; linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > Subject: Discussion on device's runtime wake capability > > > Importance: High > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > We are using _PRW as a hint to see if a device supports wakeup, this is > > > fine for device which is able to wake the system in a sleep state, but > > > not to wake itself when system is at S0. > > > > > > Moreover, when we are to arm the device runtime wake, I think there is > > > no need to power on the power resources referenced in _PRW, those power > > > resources should be used to give the device ability to wake the system > > > from a sleep state, not to wake itself when system is at S0, so > > > powering thoses power resources on for run wake is a waste. > > > > > Sounds reasonable to me. > > To do runtime wake, we only need to power on the resources in _PR0. > > That would keep the device in D0 state :-) > We can put the device into a lower power state which _S0W permits for > run wake. Precisely. Which may or may not have anything to do with the _PRW resources, however. Thanks, Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- 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
