From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg Sarjeant Subject: RE: Gateway 200X (again) - No power button events Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 19:07:32 -0500 Sender: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Message-ID: <1074643651.5488.14.camel@localhost> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Errors-To: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: To: "Grover, Andrew" Cc: Nate Lawson , acpi-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 18:27, Grover, Andrew wrote: > That is correct. So, the code ignores a CM power button if a FF button > is found. There is a bit in the FADT that declares if the power button > is fixed or control-method. > > PWR_BUTTON A zero indicates the power button is handled as a fixed > feature programming model; a one indicates the power > button is handled as a control method device. If the system > does not have a power button, this value would be "1" and > no sleep button device would be present. > > (I think that "sleep" should be "power" but anyways...) > > So the FF pwr button gets priority. You can comment out a few lines in > scan.c acpi_bus_scan_fixed(), and it should not register the FF power > button. That might be interesting to try. > > Regards -- Andy Aha! That did the trick. I commented out these three lines: if (acpi_fadt.pwr_button == 0) result = acpi_bus_add(&device, acpi_root, NULL, ACPI_BUS_TYPE_POWER_BUTTON); And now dmesg reports: ACPI: Processor [CPU0] (supports C1 C2 C3, 8 throttling states) ACPI: Lid Switch [LID0] ACPI: Sleep Button (CM) [SLPB] ACPI: Power Button (CM) [PWRB] ACPI: AC Adapter [ADP1] (on-line) ACPI: Battery Slot [BAT1] (battery present) [ACPI Debug] String: Not Support ACPI: Thermal Zone [THRM] (50 C) ACPI: Fan [FAN0] (on) So, it is picking up the Control Method Power Button, and I get events from it now. Outstanding. When I was googling around, I saw a lot of references to a patch for 2.4 that ignores Fixed Feature buttons when Control Method buttons are found. For example: http://www.funet.fi/pub/Linux/PEOPLE/Linus/v2.4/patch-html/patch-2.4.14/linux_drivers_acpi_ospm_button_bn_osl.c.html Hm - now that I look at it again, the author name is familiar :) Is this something that might find its way into the main kernel tree? Should I submit a bug for this behavior? Thanks for the suggestion! Greg ------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004 Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA. http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn