On Fri, 2008-04-18 at 21:18 -0700, David Brownell wrote: > This imports the driver model device.power.may_wakeup flags to ACPI, > using it to *REPLACE* the /proc/acpi/wakeup flags for some devices. > It depends on the previous patch making device.power.can_wakeup > behave. > It does that by: > > - Implementing platform_enable_wakeup(), which is currently invoked > only > by pci_enable_wake(). When that's called -- probably in the driver > suspend() call -- it updates acpi_device.wakeup.state.enabled flag > in > the same way writing to /proc/acpi/wakeup updates it. > > - Updating the usage of the corresponding ACPI flags when turning on > wakeup power domains and GPEs. > > THIS PATCH NEEDS MORE ATTENTION because of the way the ACPI method > invocations have been changing, e.g. the 1.0 vs 2.0 sequencing. > > Right now it's not clear to me whether the GPEs are always enabled at > the right time, and for that matter whether the rules haven't changed > so that drivers can no longer effectively control those settings from > suspend() unless acpi_new_pts_ordering is in effect. Sorry. It's such a long sentence which is hard for me to understand. :( > it's not clear to me whether the GPEs are always enabled at > the right time this patch doesn't change the time when GPEs are enabled. when do you think should be the right time to enable the GPEs? > > ACPI systems see behavioral changes as follows: > > * Wakeup-aware PCI drivers no longer need to have someone override > the > initial system config by writing to /proc/acpi/wakeup; existing > calls > to pci_enable_wake() suffice. For wakeup-unaware drivers, it's > still > not clearly safe to enable wakeup in /proc/acpi/wakeup. > > * Non-PCI frameworks (as for PS2 serial ports) could call the > platform > hook like PCI does, supporting wakeup-aware drivers. > > * The /sys/devices/.../power/wakeup flags are a different kind of > manual > override. They _disable_ wakeup for broken hardware or drivers, > rather > than _enabling_ it in the hope that unmodified drivers won't > break when > their hardware triggers wakeup events. > > NOT YET SIGNED-OFF ... primarily because of the confusion about > the order in which ACPI methods get called during entry to suspend > states. I think it's safe to apply this patch. But I don't know what's the relationship between this patch and the "acpi_new_pts_ordering" stuff you stated earlier, do I miss something? thanks, rui > Presumably one of the "new style" PM methods calls will > now always work for drivers wanting to enable wakeup methods... _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
