Hi, Rafael, On 一, 2012-02-13 at 21:25 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Monday, February 13, 2012, Lin Ming wrote: > > From: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > If a device has _PR3._ON, it means the device supports D3_HOT. > > If a device has _PR3._OFF, it means the device supports D3_COLD. > > Add the ability to validate and enter D3_COLD state in ACPI. > > > > Signed-off-by: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@xxxxxxxxx> > > This is supposed to be ACPI 5.0 support, right? > No, D3_HOT is introduced in ACPI spec 4.0. According to the spec, _PR3 is used for devices that support both D3(D3_COLD) and D3HOT. The confusion here is that Linux D3 equals ACPICA D3HOT and Linux D3_COLD equals ACPICA D3. For example, when enter Linux ACPI D3, the reference count of ACPI Power Resources in _PR3 is increased by one. > So can anyone please tell me what part of the ACPI 5.0 spec is the > basis of this patch, because I can't see that immediately? > > The only places where D3Cold is _mentioned_ are Section 7.2.12 (_PRE, which > appears to be new in 5.0), Section 7.2.20 (_S0W), Section 7.2.21 (_S1W), > Section 7.2.22 (_S2W), Section 7.2.23 (_S3W) and Section 7.2.24 (_S4W). > None of them mentions those _PR3._ON and _PR3._OFF things above. > > Moreover, my understanding of the spec is that D3Cold means all of the > power resources returned by _PR3 are "off" (whereas some of them will be > "on" in D3hot). > Agreed. > > --- > > drivers/acpi/power.c | 4 ++-- > > drivers/acpi/scan.c | 10 +++++++++- > > 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/power.c b/drivers/acpi/power.c > > index 9ac2a9f..0d681fb 100644 > > --- a/drivers/acpi/power.c > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/power.c > > @@ -500,14 +500,14 @@ int acpi_power_transition(struct acpi_device *device, int state) > > { > > int result; > > > > - if (!device || (state < ACPI_STATE_D0) || (state > ACPI_STATE_D3)) > > + if (!device || (state < ACPI_STATE_D0) || (state > ACPI_STATE_D3_COLD)) > > return -EINVAL; > > > > if (device->power.state == state) > > return 0; > > > > if ((device->power.state < ACPI_STATE_D0) > > - || (device->power.state > ACPI_STATE_D3)) > > + || (device->power.state > ACPI_STATE_D3_COLD)) > > return -ENODEV; > > > > /* TBD: Resources must be ordered. */ > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/scan.c b/drivers/acpi/scan.c > > index 8ab80ba..a9d4391 100644 > > --- a/drivers/acpi/scan.c > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/scan.c > > @@ -881,8 +881,16 @@ static int acpi_bus_get_power_flags(struct acpi_device *device) > > > > device->power.flags.power_resources = 1; > > ps->flags.valid = 1; > > - for (j = 0; j < ps->resources.count; j++) > > + for (j = 0; j < ps->resources.count; j++) { > > acpi_bus_add_power_resource(ps->resources.handles[j]); > > + /* Check for D3_COLD support. _PR3._OFF equals D3_COLD ? */ > > + if (i == ACPI_STATE_D3) { > > + if (j == 0) > > + device->power.states[ACPI_STATE_D3_COLD].flags.valid = 1; > > + status = acpi_get_handle(ps->resources.handles[j], "_OFF", &handle); > > + device->power.states[ACPI_STATE_D3_COLD].flags.valid &= ACPI_SUCCESS(status); > > + } > > + } > > Sorry, but this doesn't make sense to me. Power resources always have > the _OFF method, right? > I'm not sure. I thought I had seen ACPI Power Resources without _OFF control method somewhere in bugzilla, but I can not find it out now. Hmm, how about set D3_COLD support if _PR3 exists, but leave a warning message if _OFF doesn't exist, for now? thanks, rui -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html