On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 07:57:06PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Wed 2019-07-24 21:19:14, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > [ Upstream commit 44758bafa53602f2581a6857bb20b55d4d8ad5b2 ] > > > > ACPI GPEs (other than the EC one) can be enabled in two situations. > > First, the GPEs with existing _Lxx and _Exx methods are enabled > > implicitly by ACPICA during system initialization. Second, the > > GPEs without these methods (like GPEs listed by _PRW objects for > > wakeup devices) need to be enabled directly by the code that is > > going to use them (e.g. ACPI power management or device drivers). > > > > In the former case, if the status of a given GPE is set to start > > with, its handler method (either _Lxx or _Exx) needs to be invoked > > to take care of the events (possibly) signaled before the GPE was > > enabled. In the latter case, however, the first caller of > > acpi_enable_gpe() for a given GPE should not be expected to care > > about any events that might be signaled through it earlier. In > > that case, it is better to clear the status of the GPE before > > enabling it, to prevent stale events from triggering unwanted > > actions (like spurious system resume, for example). > > Given the complexity of ACPI and number of implementations, I don't > think this is safe for stable. So it's better to have a regression later rather than sooner? > Notebooks are not part of automated test farms, so it did not get > nearly enough testing... But by finding problems with a patch when it is closer to having been created is always better than waiting 6+ months to find the issue then. And if this patch does cause problems, we can easily revert it. thanks, greg k-h
