Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 08 Dec 2008 21:40:14 +0100 | From | Witold Szczeponik <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] PNPACPI: Enable Power Management |
| |
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
| |