On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 02:48:58 PM Aaron Lu wrote:
> On 07/30/2013 10:04 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 07:43:48 AM Aaron Lu wrote:
> >> On 07/30/2013 06:21 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>> On Monday, July 29, 2013 10:09:53 PM Aaron Lu wrote:
> >>>> On 07/27/2013 09:10 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>>>> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Make acpi_device_set_power() check if the given device is power
> >>>>> manageable before checking if the given power state is valid for that
> >>>>> device. Otherwise it will print that "Device does not support" that
> >>>>> power state into the kernel log, which may not make sense for some
> >>>>> power states (D0 and D3cold are supported by all devices by
> >>>>> definition).
> >>>>
> >>>> It will not print "Device does not support" that power state if that
> >>>> power state is D0 or D3cold since we have unconditionally set those two
> >>>> power state's valid flag.
> >>>
> >>> So you didn't actually looked at acpi_bus_get_power_flags() that set the
> >>> power.states[].flags.valid flag, because If you had looked at it, you would
> >>> have seen that that's not the case.
> >>>
> >>> No, we don't set the valid flag for devices that aren't power manageable
> >>> (i.e. have flags.power_manageable unset), which is the *whole* *point* of
> >>> this change.
> >>
> >> Right, I missed this. Sorry for the noise.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> OTOH, what value should we return for a device node that is not power
> >>>> manageable in acpi_device_set_power when the target state is D0 or D3
> >>>> cold? The old behavior is to return 0, meanning success without taking
> >>>> any actual action.
> >>>>
> >>>> In acpi_bus_set_power, if the device is not power manageable, we will
> >>>> return -ENODEV; in acpi_dev_pm_full/low_power, we will return 0 as in
> >>>> the original acpi_device_set_power. So return -EINVAL here is correct?
> >>>
> >>> No, the original acpi_device_set_power() will return -ENODEV then, but
> >>> in my opinion returning -EINVAL is more accurate, because "power
> >>> manageable" means "you can change power state of it".
> >>
> >> Shall I prepare a patch to update the errno in acpi_bus_set_power?
> >
> > In fact, it doesn't need to check flags.power_manageable after this patch
> > and the debug message won't be missed I think, so please just remove
> > the whole if () from there, if that's not a problem.
>
> Patch to remove the redundant check, apply on top of this one.
>
> From: Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [PATCH 1/3] ACPI / PM: Remove redundant check for power manageable in
> acpi_bus_set_power
>
> Now that we will check if a device is power manageable in
> acpi_device_set_power, it is no longer necessary to do this check in
> acpi_bus_set_power, so remove it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@xxxxxxxxx>
Looks good, I'll queue it up for 3.12.
Thanks,
Rafael
> ---
> drivers/acpi/device_pm.c | 7 -------
> 1 file changed, 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/device_pm.c b/drivers/acpi/device_pm.c
> index 63324b8..8270711 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/device_pm.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/device_pm.c
> @@ -245,13 +245,6 @@ int acpi_bus_set_power(acpi_handle handle, int state)
> if (result)
> return result;
>
> - if (!device->flags.power_manageable) {
> - ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT((ACPI_DB_INFO,
> - "Device [%s] is not power manageable\n",
> - dev_name(&device->dev)));
> - return -ENODEV;
> - }
> -
> return acpi_device_set_power(device, state);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(acpi_bus_set_power);
>
--
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
