From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] introduce .wakeup_event ops Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 12:52:10 +0100 Message-ID: <20090819115210.GC12216@srcf.ucam.org> References: <1250666651.23178.116.camel@sli10-desk.sh.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:34199 "EHLO cavan.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751913AbZHSLwU (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Aug 2009 07:52:20 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1250666651.23178.116.camel@sli10-desk.sh.intel.com> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Shaohua Li Cc: linux acpi , pm list , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Alan Stern On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 03:24:11PM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote: > Usually driver should does nothing in the op as bus can handle it. But in some > cases, like pci bus, UHCI controller doesn't use standard PME registers for > wakeup, instead of using special approach. In this case, UHCI controller driver > should implement this op. I'm not averse to the general concept, but I'm not entirely sold on it being necessary. All the hardware I'm aware of will send non-PME events as a notification on a specific device. Under what circumstances will we get a wakeup GPE for a non-PME device without knowing which device should be woken? -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org