--- On Thu, 1/6/11, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > The wake_capable ACPI device flag is not necessary, because > it is > only used in scan.c for recording the information Only for ACPI, yes? Generically, it records data for any wake-capable dvice, and is not ACPI-specific... My bias is that ACPI should work the way other PM solutions/hardware work, not collect special cases unique to ACPI (kind of like this.) ... that _PRW > is > present for the given device. That information is > only used by > acpi_add_single_object() to decide whether or not to call > acpi_bus_get_wakeup_device_flags(), so the flag may be > dropped > if the _PRW check is moved to > acpi_bus_get_wakeup_device_flags(). Only if you presume ACPI .... I'm glad to see that generic-vs-ACPI duplication of flags vanishing; way back when I started to add wakeup support, I had to stop part way through ACPI in large part because wake didn't work well yet in the Linux PM framework, except for select non-ACPI HW. (Starting with a USB subset: OTG and hub port sleep and ewakeup); oh, also GPIO wake on some HW, e.g. or buttons, and switches like MMC/SD card detect. ISTR that stuff still wierds out a bit as it goes through Linux-ACPI. Also, to the extent that the ACPI code was supposed to be generic and not Linux-specific, I thought Len or someone from Intel should drive such issues. _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
