On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 01:58:30AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 22, 2017 09:01:48 AM Lee, Chun-Yi wrote:
> > Just checking the state of container is not enough to confirm that
> > the whole container is offlined.
>
> And why is that so?
>
Actually there does not have real kernel issue triggered by this code now.
I reviewed code and found the difference between acpi_container_offline().
Considering a container that it includes devices and sub-containers
like this:
Scope (_SB)
Device (MODU)
Name (_HID, "ACPI0004") <=== main-container
Device (PCIE)
Name (_HID, EisaId ("PNP0A08"))
Device (SUBM)
Name (_HID, "ACPI0004") <=== sub-container
Device (MEM0)
Name (_HID, EisaId ("PNP0C80"))
...
The original code checks the physical nodes on the main container but
doesn't check children's physical nodes. So, it may happen the sub-container
didn't offline but the offline checking of main container is pass.
Please kindly direct me if I misunderstood or missed any detail in the codes
about physcial node and container offline.
Thank a lot!
Joey Lee
--
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
