On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 2:24 PM, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2018-01-10 at 13:26 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx> >> >> Some systems don't support the ACPI_LPS0_ENTRY and ACPI_LPS0_EXIT >> functions in their Low Power S0 Idle _DSM, but still expect EC >> events to be processed in the suspend-to-idle state for power button >> wakeup (among other things) to work. Surface Pro3 turns out to be >> one of them. >> >> Fortunately, it still provides Low Power S0 Idle _DSM with the screen >> on/off functions supported, so modify the ACPI suspend-to-idle to use >> the Low Power S0 Idle code path for all systems supporting the >> ACPI_LPS0_ENTRY and ACPI_LPS0_EXIT or the ACPI_LPS0_SCREEN_OFF and >> ACPI_LPS0_SCREEN_ON functions in their Low Power S0 Idle _DSM. >> >> Potentially, that will cause more systems to use suspend-to-idle by >> default, so some future corrections may be necessary if it leads >> to issues, but let it remain more straightforward for now. > >> -#define ACPI_S2IDLE_FUNC_MASK ((1 << ACPI_LPS0_ENTRY) | (1 << >> ACPI_LPS0_EXIT)) >> +#define ACPI_LPS0_SCREEN_MASK ((1 << ACPI_LPS0_SCREEN_OFF) | >> (1 << ACPI_LPS0_SCREEN_ON)) > >> +#define ACPI_LPS0_S2I_MASK ((1 << ACPI_LPS0_ENTRY) | (1 << >> ACPI_LPS0_EXIT)) > > Just a nitpick: Can we leave S2IDLE instead of S2I? > Would it make sense for potential code readers? I wanted it to be shorter, but if that is a problem, I'd rather call it PLATFORM than S2IDLE (as technically they are related to the low-power mode of the platform). I'll send an update shortly. -- 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
