From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] acpi-based wakeup event detection Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 12:42:20 +0100 Message-ID: <20090819114220.GA12216@srcf.ucam.org> References: <1250666661.23178.120.camel@sli10-desk.sh.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:33106 "EHLO cavan.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751494AbZHSLmc (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Aug 2009 07:42:32 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1250666661.23178.120.camel@sli10-desk.sh.intel.com> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Shaohua Li Cc: linux acpi , linux-pm , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Alan Stern On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 03:24:21PM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote: > + ret = acpi_gpe_pme_check(dev); > + > + acpi_disable_gpe(dev->wakeup.gpe_device, dev->wakeup.gpe_number); I don't think we want to unconditionally disable the GPE. > + > + acpi_init_gpe_pme(); I'm also not keen on haing the notifier being at the ACPI level. Are we guaranteed that the GPE will only be used for wakeups, and will never trigger any other sort of notification? Keeping this at the bus level may be more practical. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org