Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1672001 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-06-21 22:20 +0200 |
| Last post | 2017-06-23 08:00 +0200 |
| Articles | 5 — 3 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: [PATCH 5/7] platform/x86: fujitsu-laptop: do not update ACPI device power status Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org> - 2017-06-21 22:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH 5/7] platform/x86: fujitsu-laptop: do not update ACPI device power status Michał Kępień <kernel@kempniu.pl> - 2017-06-22 23:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH 5/7] platform/x86: fujitsu-laptop: do not update ACPI device power status Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org> - 2017-06-23 02:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH 5/7] platform/x86: fujitsu-laptop: do not update ACPI device power status Jonathan Woithe <jwoithe@just42.net> - 2017-06-23 02:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH 5/7] platform/x86: fujitsu-laptop: do not update ACPI device power status Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org> - 2017-06-23 08:00 +0200
| From | Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-21 22:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 5/7] platform/x86: fujitsu-laptop: do not update ACPI device power status |
| Message-ID | <tUUgx-2Hl-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 06:40:56AM +0200, Michał Kępień wrote:
> Calling acpi_bus_update_power() for ACPI devices FUJ02B1 and FUJ02E3 is
> pointless as they are not power manageable (neither _PS0 nor _PR0 is
> defined for any of them), which causes their power state to be inherited
> from their parent devices. Given the ACPI paths of these two devices
> (\_SB.PCI0.LPCB.FJEX, \_SB.FEXT), their parent devices are also not
> power manageable. These parent devices will thus have their power state
> initialized to ACPI_STATE_D0, which in turn causes the power state for
> both FUJ02B1 and FUJ02E3 to always be ACPI_STATE_D0 ("on").
>
How confident are we that all implementations of these two ACPI devices lack
_PS0 and _PR0 ?
--
Darren Hart
VMware Open Source Technology Center
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michał Kępień <kernel@kempniu.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-22 23:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tVhwv-1xP-33@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1672001 |
> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 06:40:56AM +0200, Michał Kępień wrote:
> > Calling acpi_bus_update_power() for ACPI devices FUJ02B1 and FUJ02E3 is
> > pointless as they are not power manageable (neither _PS0 nor _PR0 is
> > defined for any of them), which causes their power state to be inherited
> > from their parent devices. Given the ACPI paths of these two devices
> > (\_SB.PCI0.LPCB.FJEX, \_SB.FEXT), their parent devices are also not
> > power manageable. These parent devices will thus have their power state
> > initialized to ACPI_STATE_D0, which in turn causes the power state for
> > both FUJ02B1 and FUJ02E3 to always be ACPI_STATE_D0 ("on").
> >
>
> How confident are we that all implementations of these two ACPI devices lack
> _PS0 and _PR0 ?
I looked at DSDT dumps of four different Fujitsu laptops released in the
past ten years or so for which at least one of these two ACPI devices is
present and found no traces of either of these methods being defined for
them. I do not think we have a way of ensuring that the above holds
true for every other model out there, but I will point out that
fujitsu-laptop is the only user of acpi_bus_update_power() outside of
drivers/acpi.
--
Best regards,
Michał Kępień
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-23 02:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tVkaZ-2ZS-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1673051 |
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 11:02:35PM +0200, Michał Kępień wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 06:40:56AM +0200, Michał Kępień wrote:
> > > Calling acpi_bus_update_power() for ACPI devices FUJ02B1 and FUJ02E3 is
> > > pointless as they are not power manageable (neither _PS0 nor _PR0 is
> > > defined for any of them), which causes their power state to be inherited
> > > from their parent devices. Given the ACPI paths of these two devices
> > > (\_SB.PCI0.LPCB.FJEX, \_SB.FEXT), their parent devices are also not
> > > power manageable. These parent devices will thus have their power state
> > > initialized to ACPI_STATE_D0, which in turn causes the power state for
> > > both FUJ02B1 and FUJ02E3 to always be ACPI_STATE_D0 ("on").
> > >
> >
> > How confident are we that all implementations of these two ACPI devices lack
> > _PS0 and _PR0 ?
>
> I looked at DSDT dumps of four different Fujitsu laptops released in the
> past ten years or so for which at least one of these two ACPI devices is
> present and found no traces of either of these methods being defined for
> them. I do not think we have a way of ensuring that the above holds
> true for every other model out there, but I will point out that
> fujitsu-laptop is the only user of acpi_bus_update_power() outside of
> drivers/acpi.
OK, thanks. Queueing to testing.
--
Darren Hart
VMware Open Source Technology Center
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Woithe <jwoithe@just42.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-23 02:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tVkul-3lB-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1673137 |
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 04:58:43PM -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 11:02:35PM +0200, Micha?? K??pie?? wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 06:40:56AM +0200, Micha?? K??pie?? wrote:
> > > > Calling acpi_bus_update_power() for ACPI devices FUJ02B1 and FUJ02E3 is
> > > > pointless as they are not power manageable (neither _PS0 nor _PR0 is
> > > > defined for any of them), which causes their power state to be inherited
> > > > from their parent devices. Given the ACPI paths of these two devices
> > > > (\_SB.PCI0.LPCB.FJEX, \_SB.FEXT), their parent devices are also not
> > > > power manageable. These parent devices will thus have their power state
> > > > initialized to ACPI_STATE_D0, which in turn causes the power state for
> > > > both FUJ02B1 and FUJ02E3 to always be ACPI_STATE_D0 ("on").
> > > >
> > >
> > > How confident are we that all implementations of these two ACPI devices lack
> > > _PS0 and _PR0 ?
> >
> > I looked at DSDT dumps of four different Fujitsu laptops released in the
> > past ten years or so for which at least one of these two ACPI devices is
> > present and found no traces of either of these methods being defined for
> > them. I do not think we have a way of ensuring that the above holds
> > true for every other model out there, but I will point out that
> > fujitsu-laptop is the only user of acpi_bus_update_power() outside of
> > drivers/acpi.
>
> OK, thanks. Queueing to testing.
Thanks. In case it was missed, I supplied my reviewed-by message and
sign-off in an earlier post.
Regards
jonathan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-23 08:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tVpNo-6E0-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1673145 |
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 09:46:59AM +0930, Jonathan Woithe wrote: > Thanks. In case it was missed, I supplied my reviewed-by message and > sign-off in an earlier post. Yup, got it - thanks! -- Darren Hart VMware Open Source Technology Center
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web