Hi Rafael, On 6/21/2016 5:50 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 02:05:05 PM Prakash, Prashanth wrote: >> Hi Rafael, >> >> Any inputs on this patch? > Does it actually work? Yes, it works :) > It looks like sybus_evaluate_ost() schedules itself with a delay in an > endless loop and the poweroff will happen anyway without waiting. > > I guess the idea is that acpi_sybus_notify() will schedule a delayed work > doing the sybus_evaluate_ost() and that will do the orderly_poweroff() thing, > but that's not what the patch is doing. The specification requires us to start graceful shutdown and then keep evaluating _OST method every 10 seconds with a status code of 0x81 to indicate that shutdown is in progress. Since we need not trigger a graceful shutdown every time we evaluate _OST method. I am calling orderly_poweroff only when we get the initial request via Notify. > That "sybus" naming looks sort of lame BTW. What's wrong with using "sb" > instead? Sure, I will change the naming to use sb instead of sybus. > > Besides actypes.h is an ACPICA file and patches updating it have to go via > upstream ACPICA. I can split this into 2 patches, so that they can be merged independently. Would that work? > > And one more thing, if you checked acpi_get_handle() for "\\_SB" once, > it will succeed every time going forward. No need to check again. OK, I will remove the checks from sybus_evaluate_ost(). > > Thanks, > Rafael > Thanks, Prashanth -- 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
