On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 11:02:35PM +0200, Michał Kępień wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 06:40:56AM +0200, Michał Kępień wrote:
> > > Calling acpi_bus_update_power() for ACPI devices FUJ02B1 and FUJ02E3 is
> > > pointless as they are not power manageable (neither _PS0 nor _PR0 is
> > > defined for any of them), which causes their power state to be inherited
> > > from their parent devices. Given the ACPI paths of these two devices
> > > (\_SB.PCI0.LPCB.FJEX, \_SB.FEXT), their parent devices are also not
> > > power manageable. These parent devices will thus have their power state
> > > initialized to ACPI_STATE_D0, which in turn causes the power state for
> > > both FUJ02B1 and FUJ02E3 to always be ACPI_STATE_D0 ("on").
> > >
> >
> > How confident are we that all implementations of these two ACPI devices lack
> > _PS0 and _PR0 ?
>
> I looked at DSDT dumps of four different Fujitsu laptops released in the
> past ten years or so for which at least one of these two ACPI devices is
> present and found no traces of either of these methods being defined for
> them. I do not think we have a way of ensuring that the above holds
> true for every other model out there, but I will point out that
> fujitsu-laptop is the only user of acpi_bus_update_power() outside of
> drivers/acpi.
OK, thanks. Queueing to testing.
--
Darren Hart
VMware 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
