From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Maxim Levitsky Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/3] Introduce GPE refcounting (was: Re: Recent GPE patches - some questions.) Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 18:08:03 +0200 Message-ID: <1266077283.25058.1.camel@maxim-laptop> References: <4911F71203A09E4D9981D27F9D83085855AF782E@orsmsx503.amr.corp.intel.com> <201002102236.34881.rjw@sisk.pl> <1265909773.9788.12.camel@maxim-laptop> <201002112134.27386.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.159]:49066 "EHLO fg-out-1718.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755552Ab0BMQNO (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Feb 2010 11:13:14 -0500 Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 19so6664fgg.1 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 2010 08:13:10 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <201002112134.27386.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: "Moore, Robert" , Matthew Garrett , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , Len Brown , Jesse Barnes On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 21:34 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thursday 11 February 2010, Maxim Levitsky wrote: > > On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 22:36 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Wednesday 10 February 2010, Maxim Levitsky wrote: > > > > On Sun, 2010-02-07 at 03:17 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > On Sunday 07 February 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday 03 February 2010, Moore, Robert wrote: > > > > > > > Matthew, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your response to my questions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've been thinking about these interfaces: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > acpi_ref_runtime_gpe > > > > > > > acpi_ref_wakeup_gpe > > > > > > > acpi_unref_runtime_gpe > > > > > > > acpi_unref_wakeup_gpe > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One minor, mostly off-topic question. > > > > Currently to enable static wakeup one has to write /proc/acpi/wakeup. > > > > > > That depends on the device. For PCI devices there's another interface for > > > that, which is /sys/devices/.../power/wakeup . > > > > > > > Do you consider propagating device wakeup settings to acpi, > > > > so /proc/acpi/wakeup could finally be deprecated? > > > > > > We already do that for PCI devices. > > > > Not in 2.6.33-rc6 > > > > maxim@maxim-laptop:~$ cat /proc/acpi/wakeup > > Device S-state Status Sysfs node > > UHC1 S3 disabled pci:0000:00:1d.0 > > UHC2 S3 disabled pci:0000:00:1d.1 > > UHC3 S3 disabled pci:0000:00:1d.2 > > UHC4 S3 disabled pci:0000:00:1a.0 > > UHC5 S3 disabled pci:0000:00:1a.1 > > EHC1 S3 disabled pci:0000:00:1d.7 > > EHC2 S3 disabled pci:0000:00:1a.7 > > EXP3 S4 disabled pci:0000:00:1c.2 > > EXP5 S4 disabled > > EXP6 S4 disabled > > AZAL S4 disabled pci:0000:00:1b.0 > > MODM S4 disabled > > > > maxim@maxim-laptop:~$ echo enabled | sudo tee /sys/devices/pci0000 > > \:00/0000\:00\:1d.0/power/wakeup > > enabled > > > > cat /sys/devices/pci0000\:00/0000\:00\:1d.0/power/wakeup enabled > > > > > > maxim@maxim-laptop:~$ cat /proc/acpi/wakeup > > Device S-state Status Sysfs node > > UHC1 S3 disabled pci:0000:00:1d.0 > > UHC2 S3 disabled pci:0000:00:1d.1 > > UHC3 S3 disabled pci:0000:00:1d.2 > > UHC4 S3 disabled pci:0000:00:1a.0 > > UHC5 S3 disabled pci:0000:00:1a.1 > > EHC1 S3 disabled pci:0000:00:1d.7 > > EHC2 S3 disabled pci:0000:00:1a.7 > > EXP3 S4 disabled pci:0000:00:1c.2 > > EXP5 S4 disabled > > EXP6 S4 disabled > > AZAL S4 disabled pci:0000:00:1b.0 > > MODM S4 disabled > > > > > > Or am I mistaken somehow? > > You are. Please ignore the "Status" column in /proc/acpi/wakeup, it shows > the value of a flag that's not used for PCI devices (unless you set it via > /proc/acpi/wakeup It is indeed true. PnP device too are supported in this way? Then I think it would be very nice to remove all pci and pnp devices from this list to avoid confusion. Best regards, Maxim Levitsky