Re: [RFC][PATCH -mm 2/9] ACPI: Add acpi_pm_device_sleep_state helper routine

Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-07-02T20:08:12Z

On Monday, 2 July 2007 19:24, David Brownell wrote:
> On Monday 02 July 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, 2 July 2007 07:49, David Brownell wrote:
>
> > > Also, recall that this was originally PCI-specific. A generalized
> > > approach would return a range of states, not a single state that
> > > embeds a particular policy that may not be universally appropriate...
> >
> > Via pointers and the return value equal to 0 on success?
>
> It could as easily be one pointer: "int minmax[2]".
> Then min == minmax[0] and max == minmax[1], and the
> ACPI calls could write the caller's data directly.
>
> But in general, yes -- pointer, not single return value.
>
>
> > > The logic was that PCI devices can all support PCI_D0 and PCI_D3.
> > > For non-PCI devices we can't actually know that. So "min" should
> > > probably default to ACPI_STATE_D0. If this returns a range, then
> > > such issues can stay out of this code.
> >
> > The ACPI spec says that all devices must support D0 and D3.
>
> ISTR that it actually says they must "recognize" D3. That's
> not the same as actually implementing a software controllable
> power-off state ... and not the same as imposing a "use the
> biggest numbered D-state" policy at this level.

No, it literally says "All devices must support the D0 and D3 states" (that
actually is stated in Appendix A, A.3.4 in the 3.0b specification).

Still, I think that the question really is what we should return if _SxD or
_SxW are not present.

> > > > + /*
> > > > + * If _PRW says we can wake from the upcoming system state, the _SxD
> > > > + * value can wake ... and we'll assume a wakeup-aware driver. If _SxW
> > > > + * methods exist (ACPI 3.x), they give the lowest power D-state that
> > > > + * can also wake the system. _S0W can be valid.
> > > > + */
> > > > + if (acpi_target_sleep_state == ACPI_STATE_S0 ||
> > > > + (dev->wakeup.state.enabled &&

These things are the result of the evaluation of _PRW for that device and
we need to check them here (or evaluate _PRW ourselves, but that wouldn't make
sense, since it's already been evaulated), unless the caller tells us not to
bother (we should provide the caller with a means to do it, though).

> > >
> > > This used device_may_wakeup() before. That ACPI flag is not a
> > > direct analogue ... without looking again at the issues, I'd
> > > say the right solution is to phase out the ACPI-only flags in
> > > new code.
> >
> > Hm, I'm not sure. This is an ACPI routine after all ...
>
> It's in the Linux kernel, talking about Linux devices.
> Some of them have ACPI support; many don't. (Like the
> USB device nodes, and anything else layered on top of
> mainboard devices.)

I've explained above why these ACPI flags should generally be used here.

> > > Maybe just expect the caller to pass the results
> > > of device_may_wakeup() in ... or update the signature to accept
> > > a "struct device", and fetch the handle from there. (That'd
> > > be a better match for most callers, I'd think...)
> >
> > In that case it would be nicer to pass 'struct acpi_device *' rahter than
> > 'struct device *', IMO.
>
> I'll disagree. Outside of the ACPI code, virtually nothing
> has any reason to see an "acpi_device" ... but virtually
> everything has reason to see a "device". Even ACPI code
> can rely on there being a "device" inside "acpi_device"!

Okay, we can use DEVICE_ACPI_HANDLE() in the same way as in your original
patch, no problem with that.

> This touches on a different problem. The ACPI device tree
> is parallel to the "real" tree. In the cases there's a
> one-to-one correspondence, there's no confusion; any
> acpi_device corresponds to one "real" device, and vice
> versa. BUT ... there are cases where the correspondence
> isn't one-to-one. Those cases need to be addressed, by
> moving towards a one-to-one correspondence.

Agreed.

> Cases like PCI bridges can be easily dealt with now, given
> some resequencing of init logic: use the PNP node instead
> of faking out a toplevel /sys/devices/pci0000:00 node.
>
> But things like PS2 keyboard and mouse nodes are funkier.

Yes. :-)

Greetings,
Rafael

--
"Premature optimization is the root of all evil." - Donald Knuth