From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/4] PCI / ACPI PM: Platform support for PCI PME wake-up Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 23:32:32 +0200 Message-ID: <200910062332.32132.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <200909132320.05077.rjw@sisk.pl> <200909210226.10671.rjw@sisk.pl> <20091006103213.1803cb65@jbarnes-g45> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20091006103213.1803cb65@jbarnes-g45> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Jesse Barnes Cc: Linux PCI , LKML , ACPI Devel Maling List , pm list List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 06 October 2009, Jesse Barnes wrote: > On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 02:26:10 +0200 > "Rafael J. Wysocki" wrote: > > > On Monday 14 September 2009, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 12:53:05AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > On Monday 14 September 2009, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 11:24:03PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > + } else if (!dev->wakeup.flags.run_wake) { > > > > > > + acpi_set_gpe_type(dev->wakeup.gpe_device, > > > > > > + > > > > > > dev->wakeup.gpe_number, > > > > > > + ACPI_GPE_TYPE_WAKE); > > > > > > > > > > Is this going to work for cases where we have multiple devices > > > > > attached to the same GPE? The common one is EHCI, where both > > > > > EHCI HCDs will be one a single GPE. If we wake one, that'll > > > > > then disable the GPE for the other. Further wakeup events will > > > > > then be lost. > > > > > > > > You're right, I overlooked that. Some kind of refcounting is > > > > needed here. > > > > > > I've sent patches to implement this at the GPE level, which also > > > change the API for requesting them. I'm waiting on feedback from > > > Bob Moore. > > > > In the meantime I realized there's one more thing we need to take > > care of. Namely, if a wake-up GPE is shared between multiple devices, > > it need not be necessary to install notify handlers for all of them. > > For example, if one of these devices is the root bridge, we will walk > > all of the hierarchy under it looking for devices that have PME set, > > so we need not install notify handlers for any devices that share the > > wake-up GPE with the root bridge. Similarly, there's no need to > > install a notify handler for a device that shares the wake-up GPE > > with a bridge (non-root) it is under. > > > > Taking that into account I have prepared another version of the > > @subject patch which is appended below. It also takes the PM vs > > hotplug issue into account. The idea is pretty straightforward, > > everything should be clear from the changelog and the comments within > > the patch. > > > > What's the latest on this set? Is this the final version? Anyone have > issues with this version? This was the last one I sent, haven't received any feedback whatever. Perhaps I'll send the entire patchset as is again for completness? Thanks, Rafael