From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] introduce .wakeup_event ops Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 03:48:21 +0100 Message-ID: <20090824024821.GA29538@srcf.ucam.org> References: <1250666651.23178.116.camel@sli10-desk.sh.intel.com> <20090819115210.GC12216@srcf.ucam.org> <20090820032450.GD26357@sli10-desk.sh.intel.com> <20090820074050.GA30288@srcf.ucam.org> <20090821063350.GA16694@sli10-desk.sh.intel.com> <20090821092316.GA19617@srcf.ucam.org> <20090824015046.GA6661@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]:53387 "EHLO cavan.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751125AbZHXCsd (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 Aug 2009 22:48:33 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090824015046.GA6661@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 Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 09:50:46AM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote: > On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 05:23:16PM +0800, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > Yes, but that's fine because the PME state tells us exactly which device > > caused the wakeup. We'll never get a bus notification if the wakeup is > > triggered by UHCI on Intel. > Hmm, but here what we are talking about is if notification is always sent to the device > which invokes wakeup event. > I pointed out this isn't true because BIOS might sent notification to a pci bridge and > OS should scan devices under the bridge to check which devices invokes it by looking at > PME state. Looks you are talking about other things. There are two cases: 1) Notification is sent to a device. Since we know the device that generated the event, we don't need .wakeup_event. 2) Notification is sent to a bus. This will only happen if the device supports PME, so we don't need .wakeup_event. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org