From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] introduce .wakeup_event ops Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 20:49:08 +0200 Message-ID: <200908242049.08189.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <20090819115210.GC12216@srcf.ucam.org> <20090824082722.GA32264@srcf.ucam.org> <1251103572.24336.8.camel@sli10-desk.sh.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:52342 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753284AbZHXSsT (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Aug 2009 14:48:19 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1251103572.24336.8.camel@sli10-desk.sh.intel.com> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Shaohua Li Cc: Matthew Garrett , linux acpi , pm list , Alan Stern On Monday 24 August 2009, Shaohua Li wrote: > On Mon, 2009-08-24 at 16:27 +0800, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 04:21:50PM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote: > > > On Mon, 2009-08-24 at 16:09 +0800, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > > I don't agree - the wakeup GPE will generate a standard notify, and the > > > > notification handler has to be at the device or bus layer to handle > > > > device-specific requests. > > > Then we will have duplicate code at each device or bus. > > > > I think that's inevitable, unless the notification infrastructure is > > made more fine grained. > At least we need some check and maybe gpe handling and we need some > "ifdef ACPI" staff at each device or bus. Why would we need that? > There isn't big difference device/bus register a notification handler or > register a .wakeup_event. And .wakeup_event is more simple in device/bus > level. As Matthew said, there is. To make things clear, we're not going to add .wakeup_event(). Thanks, Rafael