From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI: evaluate _PS3 when entering D3 Cold Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2012 09:29:20 +0200 Message-ID: <201204010929.21234.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <1333217910-29579-1-git-send-email-aaron.lu@amd.com> <20120401055603.GA11505@localhost.amd.com> <1333263819.2387.94.camel@rui.sh.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:47604 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751923Ab2DAHZB (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Apr 2012 03:25:01 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1333263819.2387.94.camel@rui.sh.intel.com> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Zhang Rui Cc: Aaron Lu , Lin Ming , Len Brown , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andiry Xu , Alex He On Sunday, April 01, 2012, Zhang Rui wrote: [...] > > How about this? > > We should use the term "D3" in general in Linux. I don't see why. We can refer to the "old D3" as D3_cold. > Without _PR3, OS should *assume* that the power is removed, although it > may be not true. That's correct. > With _PR3, OS can *assure* that the power is removed, because it knows > how to remove thw power (evaluating _PR3._OFF). I'd rather say that with _PR3 we have the opportunity to avoid removing power completely from the device. In other words, D3_hot is supported (and it is supported _only_ in that case). > So the difference is that OS need to make sure whether to evaluate > _PR3._OFF when _PR3 exists. For example, a device has _PR3, but _S0W > returns 3, OS should not evaluate _PR3._OFF when the device sleeps with > remote wakeup support. That's correct. > what do you think? Well, see above and my other message in this thread. Thanks, Rafael