On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 11:22:27PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Do you have any prototypes for that? I started working on it some time ago, > but then I focused on the core runtime PM framework. The native PCIe PME code? There's some in the final patchset at http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6892 but I haven't had time to look into merging that into the current kernel. I also don't have anything to test against, which makes life more awkward. > > +static int acpi_pci_runtime_wake(struct pci_dev *dev, bool enable) > > +{ > > + acpi_status status; > > + acpi_handle handle = DEVICE_ACPI_HANDLE(&dev->dev); > > + struct acpi_device *acpi_dev; > > + > > Hm, I'd move that into ACPI as > > int acp_runtime_wake_enable(acpi_handle handle, bool enable) > > in which form it could also be useful to non-PCI devices. Hm. Yeah, that's not too bad an idea. > > + acpi_disable_gpe(acpi_dev->wakeup.gpe_device, > > + acpi_dev->wakeup.gpe_number); > > + } > > + return 0; > > +} > > Ah, that's the part I've always been missing! > > How exactly do we figure out which GPE is a wake-up one for given device? > IOW, how are the wakeup.gpe_device and wakeup.gpe_number fields populated? There's a field in the ACPI device definition in the DSDT that defines the needed GPE and which runlevels it can resume from. > > + error = pci_pm_suspend(dev); > > This has a chance to be confusing IMO. pci_pm_suspend() calls the driver's > ->suspend() routine, which is specific to suspend to RAM. So, this means > that drivers are supposed to implement ->runtime_suspend() only if they > want to do something _in_ _addition_ to the things done by > ->suspend() and ->suspend_noirq(). Yes, that was how I'd planned it. An alternative would be for runtime_suspend to return a negative value if there's an error, 0 if the bus code should continue or a positive value if the runtime_suspend() call handles all of it and the bus code should just return immediately? > > + disable_irq(pci_dev->irq); > > I don't really think it's necessary to disable the interrupt here. We prevent > drivers from receiving interrupts while pci_pm_suspend_noirq() is being run > during system-wide power transitions to protect them from receiving "alien" > interrupts they might be unable to handle, but in the runtime case I think the > driver should take care of protecting itself from that. That sounds fine. I didn't want to take a risk in that respect, but if we should be safe here I can just drop that. > > + if (!enable || pci_pme_capable(dev, PCI_D3hot)) { > > + pci_pme_active(dev, enable); > > + pme_done = true; > > + } > > I don't really follow your intention here. The condition means that PME is > going to be enabled unless 'enable' is set and the device is not capable > of generating PMEs. However, if 'enable' is unset, we're still going to try > to enable the PME, even if the device can't generate it. Shouldn't that > be Hmm. That was copied from pci_enable_wake() just above, but it does seem a little bit odd. I suspect that that needs some clarification as well. > Also, that assumes the device is going to be put into D3_hot, but do we know > that for sure? I'd be surprised if there's any hardware that supports wakeups from D2 but not D3hot, so I just kept the code simple for now. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
