Re: Suggestion for improving the handling of GPE enabling.

[Pavel Machek <pavel-+ZI9xUNit7I@public.gmane.org>]

Hi!

> > better tied to what's actually happening (I'm assuming Pavel's
> > pm_message_t changes are applied). Something like:
> > 
> > PMSG_FREEZE: Disable GPEs.
> > PMSG_SUSPEND: Enable wake GPEs.
> > PMSG_ON: Disable wake GPEs, enable normal GPEs.
> I have the same feeling. A real solution should be to merge ACPI device
> into the global device tree, so every ACPI driver will have a
> .suspend/.resume method. In the .suspend/.resume method, we can do
> anything we want. This has been in the wish list for a long time.
> Some issues are:
> 1. what kind of device should ACPI device be? system device or platform
> device?

I'd say platform device, but pick one ;-).

> 2. What's purpose of the current ACPI namespace in sysfs? Could ACPI
> device be regarded as a normal device?

I did not notice we have ACPI namespace in sysfs... ... aha, I see. I
guess it is okay for debugging and low-level tricks aka sonypi?

> 3. Some ACPI devices have physical partners. Who will do the
> suspend/resume?

I'd let the physical partners do it; it should work without ACPI, too.

> 4. ACPI devices are in many different physical buses. If we just define
> an ACPI bus, we possibly can't show the bus hierarchy.

Maybe ACPI device should be "under" real hardware one?

								Pavel

-- 
People were complaining that M$ turns users into beta-testers...
...jr ghea gurz vagb qrirybcref, naq gurl frrz gb yvxr vg gung jnl!


-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click