On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 04:58:43PM -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 11:02:35PM +0200, Micha?? K??pie?? wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 06:40:56AM +0200, Micha?? K??pie?? 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.
Thanks. In case it was missed, I supplied my reviewed-by message and
sign-off in an earlier post.
Regards
jonathan
--
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
