Re: [PATCH] PNPACPI: Enable Power Management

Witold Szczeponik
2008-12-08T20:40:35Z

Bjorn Helgaas wrote:

[old stuff removed]

>> I think it should be _SRS/_PS0 and _PS3/_DIS.
>
> Thanks for the pointer. That makes sense, and your proposed order
> makes the enable/disable paths symmetric, so I think you're right.
> Can you put that spec pointer in your changelog?
>

Will do. I'll send out a new version of the patch in a separate note.

>>> Is pnpacpi_set_resources() the only place that needs this change?
>>> For active devices, we normally don't call pnpacpi_set_resources()
>>> at all. So I suppose on these ThinkPads, we exercise this path
>>> because the serial ports are initially disabled?
>> I'm not sure. I would guess that we need to put any device that is
>> enabled (either via _SRS or by default) into D0. My patch does that
>> for the _SRS case but the generic ACPI code does not. On my 600E,
>> the serial port has power when the machine is booted but has no power
>> once GRUB kicks in. It remains in this state until the 8250-pnp module
>> gets loaded, where my patch enables it.
>
> Interesting. I'd be surprised if GRUB does anything with ACPI to
> disable the port. I don't know how you determine when the port has
> power. Maybe the power-up default state is powered, and the BIOS
> turns it off before launching GRUB?

Most likely you are correct assuming that the BIOS turns the devices
off before starting GRUB. Need to investigate...

>
> I wonder if _STA is influenced by the power state. I would think
> if _STA said a device was "enabled and decoding resources," that
> would only make sense if the device were already in D0. But let's
> say we start with an active device, then run _PS3 and _DIS. What
> would _STA say in the interval between _PS3 and _DIS?

I did not check this, but a quick look at the 600E's DSDT revealed
that powering up a device and its _STA status are not correlated,
at least on this machine.

>
> This is just idle curiousity on my part, I guess. I just don't
> know much about ACPI power states, and I'm afraid of getting in
> trouble if we change too much. The _SRS path is a little less
> scary because it won't be exercised much (most devices are already
> enabled, and we don't change their settings).

ACK.

>

[parts of the patch removed]

>>>> - /* acpi_unregister_gsi(pnp_irq(dev, 0)); */
>>> Can you leave the "unregister_gsi" comment there, since it's not
>>> related to your patch? It's a reminder that we need to think about
>>> how to handle interrupts when enabling/disabling devices.
>> I'd rather remove the comment as it is misleading, IMHO. This call
>> should be made by a driver. After all, the PNPACPI core does not
>> register any IRQs, either. Otherwise, we need to think about
>> "pnp_irq(dev, 1)", too. Either way, with my patch there should be
>> no IRQ handling possible.
>
> The comment is logically unrelated to the rest of your patch, so I
> would at least split it into a separate patch just on that grounds.

ACK. But will not tackle this any time soon.

>
> The PNP core *does* register IRQs: we call acpi_register_gsi()
> in pnpacpi_parse_allocated_irqresource(), but there's no
> corresponding unregister. I think this asymmetry is a bug,
> but I haven't looked at how to handle it yet. PNP currently
> does the registration "eagerly," when the device is discovered.
> I think we should instead do the registration/unregistration
> "lazily," when a driver claims the device, as PCI does.

I find this asymmetry weird, too. Maybe we could register when
the device is enabled and unregister when it is disabled?

>
> I haven't changed this yet because there are some issues related to
> pcibios_penalize_isa_irq() -- we don't know the IRQ to penalize until
> we register the GSI.
>
> Anyway, that's a long-winded explanation of why that stupid-looking
> comment still has some value to me :-)

Now I understand. I'm giving in! :-D

>
> Bjorn
>

--- Witold