From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755107Ab1AFXwf (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Jan 2011 18:52:35 -0500 Received: from nm11.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com ([98.139.91.81]:25722 "HELO nm11.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1755078Ab1AFXwa convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Jan 2011 18:52:30 -0500 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 905872.92009.bm@omp1035.mail.sp2.yahoo.com DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=pacbell.net; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=QcBTsmr23eFqfcQoDPUaMS6+RRfNgY9jweRlVbqP06rS/7hnkRaZgKMEg9ji1HKb4jHHRNeurDVVAWmcKbdnIymoA5NZNNIYL+CPCR49iIdMnsFAF0agrNXjvjZr8iJjbADIEASYH+zvgCSwJ5hn7eredbmKYKXK0ztFr1SwwQ4=; Message-ID: <511724.91814.qm@web180315.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: Bqxcd38VM1nXHw096APDWVX65v.nEEYve_UyOtiKx6zkjb8 2TxfH32g2BsYJFuSEInJwTwVgprw.oeqpCypS.M.9Og3KCh8s_q9P7tZoqr0 ZxyA1UGrpfTpy9po7z9kBgoFen4tGdB_Qk8sNed1cvDuaa1m9cI3cib7G_18 yxRvksj6UY7i8E2INq4b4_va_mSkiEfnDxw1T18x1dGma31vbFTZx0NWGjO8 z5LdfdKnBKIHy92B29ZLWZ_vKl3E_q0g0MlNkOuDtkaC8LUJuvyQcNZyxdGG U1HUrip3aRm5_B3OCazEvwj7iKTe5Mpk47Xluxly7Wfs37WkAoXJP4GpmYH2 mqKeqIEK.tDOKxc2.3DBG4yqn_ipZE9glFeDHHGKR8I4IsYr1W.og.NEG_WE nWKM6GlQbgYWx X-Mailer: YahooMailClassic/11.4.20 YahooMailWebService/0.8.107.285259 Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 15:52:28 -0800 (PST) From: David Brownell Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 10/11] ACPI: Drop device flag wake_capable To: Len Brown , "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Linux-pm mailing list , LKML , ACPI Devel Maling List In-Reply-To: <201101062341.27705.rjw@sisk.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --- On Thu, 1/6/11, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > The wake_capable ACPI device flag is not necessary, because > it is > only used in scan.c for recording the information Only for ACPI, yes? Generically, it records data for any wake-capable dvice, and is not ACPI-specific... My bias is that ACPI should work the way other PM solutions/hardware work, not collect special cases unique to ACPI (kind of like this.) ... that _PRW > is > present for the given device.  That information is > only used by > acpi_add_single_object() to decide whether or not to call > acpi_bus_get_wakeup_device_flags(), so the flag may be > dropped > if the _PRW check is moved to > acpi_bus_get_wakeup_device_flags(). Only if you presume ACPI .... I'm glad to see that generic-vs-ACPI duplication of flags vanishing; way back when I started to add wakeup support, I had to stop part way through ACPI in large part because wake didn't work well yet in the Linux PM framework, except for select non-ACPI HW. (Starting with a USB subset: OTG and hub port sleep and ewakeup); oh, also GPIO wake on some HW, e.g. or buttons, and switches like MMC/SD card detect. ISTR that stuff still wierds out a bit as it goes through Linux-ACPI. Also, to the extent that the ACPI code was supposed to be generic and not Linux-specific, I thought Len or someone from Intel should drive such issues.