On 05/29/2016 11:28 PM, Ocean HY1 He wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Prarit Bhargava [mailto:prarit@xxxxxxxxxx] >> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 6:16 PM >> To: Ocean HY1 He; jcm@xxxxxxxxxx >> Cc: linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; David Tanaka; >> Nagananda Chumbalkar; rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; lenb@xxxxxxxxxx; >> wefu@xxxxxxxxxx >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI: Execute the _PTS method when system reboot >> >> >> >> On 05/24/2016 02:41 AM, Ocean HY1 He wrote: >>> Hi Prarit and Jon, >>> >>> How do you think of this? >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Ocean He / 何海洋 >>> SW Development Dept. >>> Beijing Design Center >>> Enterprise Product Group >>> Mobile: 18911778926 >>> E-mail: hehy1@xxxxxxxxxx >>> No.6 Chuang Ye Road, Haidian District, Beijing, China 100085 >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Ocean HY1 He >>> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 11:04 AM >>> To: rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; lenb@xxxxxxxxxx >>> Cc: linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; David >> Tanaka; Nagananda Chumbalkar >>> Subject: RE: [PATCH] ACPI: Execute the _PTS method when system >> reboot >>> >>> To whom may concern, >>> >>> A Lenovo feature depends on _PTS method execution when reboot. And >> after check the ACPI spec, I think _PTS should be exectued when reboo. >> This patch could fix the problem. >>> >>> Any comments of this patch? Many thanks! >>> >>> Ocean He / 何海洋 >>> SW Development Dept. >>> Beijing Design Center >>> Enterprise Product Group >>> Mobile: 18911778926 >>> E-mail: hehy1@xxxxxxxxxx >>> No.6 Chuang Ye Road, Haidian District, Beijing, China 100085 >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Ocean HY1 He >>> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 1:50 PM >>> To: rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; lenb@xxxxxxxxxx >>> Cc: linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; David >> Tanaka; Ocean HY1 He; Nagananda Chumbalkar >>> Subject: [PATCH] ACPI: Execute the _PTS method when system reboot >>> >>> The _PTS control method is defined in the section 7.4.1 of acpi 6.0 >>> spec. The _PTS control method is executed by the OS during the sleep >>> transition process for S1, S2, S3, S4, and for orderly S5 shutdown. >>> The sleeping state value (For example, 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 for the S5 >>> soft-off state) is passed to the _PTS control method. This method >>> is called after OSPM has notified native device drivers of the sleep >>> state transition and before the OSPM has had a chance to fully >>> prepare the system for a sleep state transition. >>> >>> The _PTS control method provides the BIOS a mechanism for performing >>> some housekeeping, such as writing the sleep type value to the >> embedded >>> controller, before entering the system sleeping state. >>> >>> According to section 7.5 of acpi 6.0 spec, _PTS should run after _TTS. >>> >>> Thus, a _PTS block notifier is added to the reboot notifier list so that >>> the _PTS object will also be evaluated when the system reboot. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Ocean He <hehy1@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> Signed-off-by: Nagananda Chumbalkar <nchumbalkar@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> drivers/acpi/sleep.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/sleep.c b/drivers/acpi/sleep.c >>> index 2a8b596..8b290fb 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/acpi/sleep.c >>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/sleep.c >>> @@ -55,6 +55,26 @@ static struct notifier_block tts_notifier = { >>> .priority = 0, >>> }; >>> >>> +static int pts_notify_reboot(struct notifier_block *this, >>> + unsigned long code, void *x) >>> +{ >>> + acpi_status status; >>> + >>> + status = acpi_execute_simple_method(NULL, "\\_PTS", >> ACPI_STATE_S5); >>> + if (ACPI_FAILURE(status) && status != AE_NOT_FOUND) { >>> + /* It won't break anything. */ >>> + printk(KERN_NOTICE "Failure in evaluating _PTS object\n"); >> >> ^^^^ >> pr_debug("No _PTS object found.\n"); >> >> It isn't a warning or error, so don't put the word "Failure" in there. >> >> Beyond that, looks entirely reasonable to me. >> >> P. >> > Hi Prarit, > > The message outputs when _PTS is found but fail to execute. I copy this code > from existed function acpi_sleep_tts_switch(). I just wants to keep new codes > as the same style as existed codes. Make sense? ;-) Not really. "Failure" is something that QE groups look for when testing, debugging, or verifying. This message implies something went wrong when the _PTS object is an optional implementation of ACPI. P. > > Ocean. >> >>> + } >>> + >>> + return NOTIFY_DONE; >>> +} >>> + >>> +static struct notifier_block pts_notifier = { >>> + .notifier_call = pts_notify_reboot, >>> + .next = NULL, >>> + .priority = 0, >>> +}; >>> + >>> static int acpi_sleep_prepare(u32 acpi_state) >>> { >>> #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP >>> @@ -896,5 +916,12 @@ int __init acpi_sleep_init(void) >>> * object can also be evaluated when the system enters S5. >>> */ >>> register_reboot_notifier(&tts_notifier); >>> + >>> + /* >>> + * According to section 7.5 of acpi 6.0 spec, _PTS should run after >>> + * _TTS when the system enters S5. >>> + */ >>> + register_reboot_notifier(&pts_notifier); >>> + >>> return 0; >>> } >>> -- 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
