On Tuesday, 25 of December 2007, Carlos Corbacho wrote: > On Tuesday 25 December 2007 13:26:12 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > Well, citing from the ACPI 2.0 specification, section 9.1.6 Transitioning > > from the Working to the Sleeping State (which is what we're discussing > > here): > > > > 3. OSPM places all device drivers into their respective Dx state. If the > > device is enabled for wake, it enters the Dx state associated with the wake > > capability. If the device is not enabled to wake the system, it enters the > > D3 state. > > 4. OSPM executes the _PTS control method, passing an argument that > > indicates the desired sleeping state (1, 2, 3, or 4 representing S1, S2, > > S3, and S4). > > > > My opinion is that we should follow this part of the specification and so > > we do. > > This is that same section from ACPI 1.0B: > > 3. The OS executes the Prepare To Sleep (_PTS) control method, passing an > argument that indicates the desired sleeping state (1, 2, 3, or 4 representing > S1, S2, S3, and S4). > > 4. The OS places all device drivers into their respective Dx state. If the > device is enabled for wakeup, it enters the Dx state associated with the > wakeup capability. If the device is not enabled to wakeup the system, it > enters the D3 state. > > The DSDTs in question also claim ACPI 1.0 compatiblity. > > > You're wrong, sorry. > > No, I'm not entirely wrong - read the 1.0 spec, and read section 7.3.2 of the > ACPI 2.0 spec. > > * ACPI 1.0 is very clear - we are breaking the 1.0 spec By following the 2.0 and later ones. Well ... > * ACPI 2.0 is contradictory - section 7.3.2 repeats 1.0 ad verbatim (which is > what I quote in reply to Robert Hancock), but as you point out, 9.3.2 says > the opposite. > > So, 1.0 and 3.0 are very clear and rather different on this, and 2.0 is > contradictory (and I presume this is one of the points ACPI 3.0 set out to > clean up). > > I will rescind my point on ACPI 2.0 - I don't know what we should or shouldn't > be doing there, the spec is unclear. I think we should follow section 9.3.2 that is explicit and has been reiterated in the 3.0 specification. > But for ACPI 1.0, we are doing the wrong thing. Yes, we are. OK, I think we can rearrange things to call _PTS early for ACPI 1.0x-compliant systems. Thanks, Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
