On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 6:19 PM Raul E Rangel <rrangel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> This change adds support for ACPI devices that use ExclusiveAndWake or
> SharedAndWake in their _CRS GpioInt definition (instead of using _PRW),
> and also provide power resources. Previously the ACPI subsystem had no
> idea if the device had a wake capable interrupt armed. This resulted
> in the ACPI device PM system placing the device into D3Cold, and thus
> cutting power to the device. With this change we will now query the
> _S0W method to figure out the appropriate wake capable D-state.
>
> Signed-off-by: Raul E Rangel <rrangel@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>
> Changes in v6:
> - Refactored to leave else clause
>
> Changes in v5:
> - Go back to using adev->wakeup.flags.valid to keep the diff cleaner
> - Fix a typo in comment
>
> drivers/acpi/device_pm.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/device_pm.c b/drivers/acpi/device_pm.c
> index 9dce1245689ca25..b657998ce728e4c 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/device_pm.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/device_pm.c
> @@ -681,7 +681,22 @@ static int acpi_dev_pm_get_state(struct device *dev, struct acpi_device *adev,
> d_min = ret;
> wakeup = device_may_wakeup(dev) && adev->wakeup.flags.valid
> && adev->wakeup.sleep_state >= target_state;
> + } else if (device_may_wakeup(dev) && dev->power.wakeirq) {
> + /*
> + * The ACPI subsystem doesn't manage the wake bit for IRQs
> + * defined with ExclusiveAndWake and SharedAndWake. Instead we
> + * expect them to be managed via the PM subsystem. Drivers
> + * should call dev_pm_set_wake_irq to register an IRQ as a wake
> + * source.
> + *
> + * If a device has a wake IRQ attached we need to check the
> + * _S0W method to get the correct wake D-state. Otherwise we
> + * end up putting the device into D3Cold which will more than
> + * likely disable wake functionality.
> + */
> + wakeup = true;
> } else {
> + /* ACPI GPE is specified in _PRW. */
> wakeup = adev->wakeup.flags.valid;
> }
>
> --
I can apply this one readily if that helps.
It doesn't depend on anything else in the series AFAICS.
It looks like patch [01/13] could also be applied right away, but
probably it is not for the ACPI tree.
I have a small comment to patch [06/13], and after that is addressed
it could be applied right away too I suppose, but the rest of the
patches need ACKs from the respective maintainers.
