Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/4] PCI/ACPI PM: Propagate wake-up enable for devices w/o ACPI support

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Friday 04 September 2009, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 04:39:46PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 
> > Quite frankly, I'm not sure of that.  It really depends on how PME# is routed
> > in given system.  The spec permits routing it directly to the chipset as well
> > as routing it through bridges and I don't know if we can assume that the
> > first upstream device capable of generating wake-up events will handle it.
> 
> The GPE block is going to be in the chipset, so unless the vendors have 
> explicitly hooked up a link between the PME line from a bridge and the 
> EC, we're presumably always going to get it from the chipset if at all.
> 
> > That said, I think we can try returning from
> > acpi_pci_propagate_wakeup_enable() as soon as
> > acpi_pm_device_sleep_wake() returns 0 for current device.  On the test systems
> > I have it won't make any difference, because the GPE is shared among the
> > root bridge and the first upstream bridge of the device in question.
> 
> Yes, it's presumably the case that the PME event in the bridge is just 
> tied to the root bridge in the chipset. Do we know what chipset this 
> hardware is? For Intel, at least, GPE behaviour is defined in the 
> chipset docs.

One box is Intel, the other one is based on an ATI (pre-AMD) chipset, but
the design is similar in that respect.

Thanks,
Rafael
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm

[Index of Archives]     [Linux ACPI]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [CPU Freq]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux