On Friday 21 March 2008, Zhao Yakui wrote: > On Fri, 2008-03-21 at 00:31 -0700, David Brownell wrote: > > > > The PNP device gets a "firmware_node" link pointing to the ACPI device. > > > > The ACPI device has a "physical_node" link pointing to the PNP device. > > > > Linux drivers currently bind only to the "physical" device nodes. > > > > > > Very good idea. > > > But maybe there is a lot of ACPI devices on the laptops. And we take a > > > little care about the association between the acpi device and "real" > > > device. > > > > Are you suggesting that the ACPI nodes shouldn't exist at all? > > Or that something is wrong with how they're set up or used? > > No. The ACPI nodes should exist. What I said is whether it is necessary > to create the link for all the ACPI devices between the ACPI device and > "real" node device. Of course it is also OK if link is created for the > ACPI device with the ability to wake the sleeping system. The confusion exists for all ACPI device nodes that mirror "real" device nodes (like PNP or PCI devices). It's *not* limited to wake-capable devices. > > For now, there's some confusion. Devices listed in ACPI tables > > have one or two extra sysfs device nodes. I think *something* > > should help sort out the confusion ... (Minor correction: *most* devices listed in ACPI tables have the problem of extra sysfs nodes. A few don't; like buttons.) > Sorry. What I means is that the link(point to the ACPI device with the > ability to wake the sleeping system) is created in the /sys/power/. > After doing so, we can easily check which device has the ability to wake > the sleeping system. There's no need for symlinks to do that ... or ACPI. I've been meaning to repost my script that scans sysfs for the wakeup-capable devices ... I updated it a short while ago to work right without "legacy" sysfs nodes. - Dave _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
