From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: Power Mangement Interfaces Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 20:40:39 +0100 Message-ID: <20070402194039.GA8044@srcf.ucam.org> References: <20070330235759.GC4252@cosmic.amd.com> <200703312001.55231.david-b@pacbell.net> <1175509422.5321.37.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200704021124.21926.david-b@pacbell.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200704021124.21926.david-b@pacbell.net> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: devel-bounces@laptop.org Errors-To: devel-bounces@laptop.org To: David Brownell Cc: Zhang Rui , linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, devel@laptop.org, "linux-acpi@vger" List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 11:24:21AM -0700, David Brownell wrote: > I don't follow this at all. Most of the relevant devices have a PCI > device driver, not an ACPI device driver. Surely you aren't proposing > that PCI drivers should incorporate lots of ACPI-specific code (which > won't be useful on non-ACPI platforms) before they start to work right? PCI devices have a handle to their ACPI object in platform_data, so it's easy enough to have generic code that interacts with both objects. > For a PCI device driver, pci_enable_wake() is all the hook that it should > ever need. If ACPI magic is needed, it should be called from inside that > routine. Yeah, I don't see that being a problem. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org