From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: [patch 2.6.21-rc5-git] make /proc/acpi/wakeup more useful Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 10:26:38 +0100 Message-ID: <20070405092638.GA30208@srcf.ucam.org> References: <200704031741.42273.david-b@pacbell.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([217.147.92.49]:43581 "EHLO vavatch.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965158AbXDEJ0u (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Apr 2007 05:26:50 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200704031741.42273.david-b@pacbell.net> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: David Brownell Cc: Linux Kernel list , Linux ACPI list , Andrew Morton On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 05:41:42PM -0700, David Brownell wrote: > This updates /proc/acpi/wakeup to be more informative, primarily by showing > the sysfs node associated with each wakeup-enabled device. Example: This looks good. > S139 S4 disabled Any idea what this one is? There's the potential for all sorts of weird platform devices to expose wakeup capabilities. > Eventually this file should be removed, but until then it's almost the only > way we have to tell how the relevant ACPI tables are broken (and cope). In > that example, two devices don't actually exist (USB3, S139), one can't issue > wakeup events (PCI0), and two seem harmlessly (?) confused (MDM and AUD are > the same PCI device, but it's the _modem_ that does wake-on-ring). Could the MDM entry be referring to the modem codec on the ac97 or hda bus? -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org