From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/4] PCI / ACPI PM: Platform support for
	PCI PME	wake-up (rev. 2)
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 12:23:20 +0100
Message-ID: <20091009112320.GA23990@srcf.ucam.org>
References: <200910090051.50932.rjw@sisk.pl> <200910090054.18693.rjw@sisk.pl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200910090054.18693.rjw@sisk.pl>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm>,
	<mailto:linux-pm-request@lists.linux-foundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/linux-pm>
List-Post: <mailto:linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linux-pm-request@lists.linux-foundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm>,
	<mailto:linux-pm-request@lists.linux-foundation.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org
Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
Cc: Linux PCI <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>, ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>, pm list <linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org>
List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 12:54:18AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

> Unfortunately, the subset of PCI devices that have GPEs associated
> with them is quite limited and the other devices have to rely on
> the GPEs associated with their upstream bridges and, possibly, the
> root bridge to generate ACPI wake-up events in response to PMEs from
> them.  Moreover, ACPI devices tend to share wake-up GPEs, in which
> cases it makes sense to install an ACPI notify handler for only one
> of them and "bind" the other devices to it.  Furthermore, ACPI-based
> PCI hotplug also uses ACPI notify handlers that in general may
> conflict with the PM notify handlers, unless this issue is
> specifically taken care of.

I'm not sure this approach is correct - for instance, from a Dell 
system:

        Method (_L0D, 0, NotSerialized)
        {
            Store (SMI (0xC6, 0x00), Local0)
            If (And (Local0, 0x01))
            {
                Notify (\_SB.PCI0.AZAL, 0x02)
            }

            If (And (Local0, 0x02))
            {
                Notify (\_SB.PCI0.EHCI, 0x02)
            }

            If (And (Local0, 0x04))
            {
                Notify (\_SB.PCI0.EHC2, 0x02)
            }
        }

All these devices share a GPE, but registering only one notify handler 
would result in us missing the notification in some cases. I also 
suspect that this should wait until the GPE rework is done.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org