On Monday, November 26, 2012 08:43:10 AM Huang Ying wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-11-25 at 15:55 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Make it possible to ask the routines used for adding/removing devices
> > to/from the general ACPI PM domain, acpi_dev_pm_attach() and
> > acpi_dev_pm_detach(), respectively, to change the power states of
> > devices so that they are put into the full-power state automatically
> > by acpi_dev_pm_attach() and into the lowest-power state available
> > automatically by acpi_dev_pm_detach().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/acpi/device_pm.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> > include/linux/acpi.h | 11 +++++++----
> > 2 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >
> > Index: linux/drivers/acpi/device_pm.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux.orig/drivers/acpi/device_pm.c
> > +++ linux/drivers/acpi/device_pm.c
> > @@ -599,10 +599,12 @@ static struct dev_pm_domain acpi_general
> > /**
> > * acpi_dev_pm_attach - Prepare device for ACPI power management.
> > * @dev: Device to prepare.
> > + * @power_on: Whether or not to power on the device.
> > *
> > * If @dev has a valid ACPI handle that has a valid struct acpi_device object
> > * attached to it, install a wakeup notification handler for the device and
> > - * add it to the general ACPI PM domain.
> > + * add it to the general ACPI PM domain. If @power_on is set, the device will
> > + * be put into the ACPI D0 state before the function returns.
> > *
> > * This assumes that the @dev's bus type uses generic power management callbacks
> > * (or doesn't use any power management callbacks at all).
> > @@ -610,7 +612,7 @@ static struct dev_pm_domain acpi_general
> > * Callers must ensure proper synchronization of this function with power
> > * management callbacks.
> > */
> > -int acpi_dev_pm_attach(struct device *dev)
> > +int acpi_dev_pm_attach(struct device *dev, bool power_on)
> > {
> > struct acpi_device *adev = acpi_dev_pm_get_node(dev);
> >
> > @@ -622,6 +624,10 @@ int acpi_dev_pm_attach(struct device *de
> >
> > acpi_add_pm_notifier(adev, acpi_wakeup_device, dev);
> > dev->pm_domain = &acpi_general_pm_domain;
> > + if (power_on) {
> > + acpi_dev_pm_full_power(adev);
> > + __acpi_device_run_wake(adev, false);
> > + }
> > return 0;
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(acpi_dev_pm_attach);
> > @@ -629,20 +635,34 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(acpi_dev_pm_attach);
> > /**
> > * acpi_dev_pm_detach - Remove ACPI power management from the device.
> > * @dev: Device to take care of.
> > + * @power_off: Whether or not to try to remove power from the device.
> > *
> > * Remove the device from the general ACPI PM domain and remove its wakeup
> > - * notifier.
> > + * notifier. If @power_off is set, additionally remove power from the device if
> > + * possible.
> > *
> > * Callers must ensure proper synchronization of this function with power
> > * management callbacks.
> > */
> > -void acpi_dev_pm_detach(struct device *dev)
> > +void acpi_dev_pm_detach(struct device *dev, bool power_off)
> > {
> > struct acpi_device *adev = acpi_dev_pm_get_node(dev);
> >
> > if (adev && dev->pm_domain == &acpi_general_pm_domain) {
> > dev->pm_domain = NULL;
> > acpi_remove_pm_notifier(adev, acpi_wakeup_device);
> > + if (power_off) {
> > + /*
> > + * If the device's PM QoS resume latency limit or flags
> > + * have been exposed to user space, they have to be
> > + * hidden at this point, so that they don't affect the
> > + * choice of the low-power state to put the device into.
> > + */
> > + dev_pm_qos_hide_latency_limit(dev);
> > + dev_pm_qos_hide_flags(dev);
>
> NO_POWER_OFF flag is ignored here. Is it possible for some device (or
> corresponding ACPI method) has broken D3cold implementation, so that the
> user need a way to disable it?
We are removing the driver here and we haven't exposed the flags, have we?
If the driver had exposed them and then left them behind, we need to clean up
after it and that's why I added those two lines.
In the future we may decide that the flags need to be exposed by the core,
because of the broken hardware, for example, before the driver's .probe()
routine is run and in that case we obviously won't be removing them here any
more. For now, however, I think it's better to hide them here.
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
