On Monday 21 April 2008, Zhang Rui wrote: > > 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. :( Apologies. On the bright side ... didn't all the new_pts_ordering stuff get removed? If that stays gone, it removes the main concern I had. That comment was written when I observed what looked to be troublesome semantic changes from that "new" ordering. > > 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. No it doesn't. Maybe I'm just more paranoid about it than someone who knows ACPI (and its version-specific issues) a lot better than me. > > 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. I did this work before the "new_pts_ordering" stuff happened. Then after "new_pts_ordering", it looked a bit problematic ... originally, I would have agreed with you. Maybe now I can agree again. - Dave > 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
