From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> To: "Oleksij Rempel (fishor)" <bug-track@fisher-privat.net> Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>, Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>, ACPI Devel Mailing List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>, Linux PM list <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Andrey Rahmatullin <wrar@wrar.name>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI / PCI: Make _SxD/_SxW check follow ACPI 4.0a spec Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 16:04:16 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <201205011604.16556.rjw@sisk.pl> (raw) In-Reply-To: <4F9F84F6.7000509@fisher-privat.net> On Tuesday, May 01, 2012, Oleksij Rempel (fishor) wrote: > On 30.04.2012 23:43, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Monday, April 30, 2012, Oleksij Rempel wrote: > >> On 30.04.2012 19:53, Alan Stern wrote: > >>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 2:44 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki<rjw@sisk.pl> wrote: > >>>>> From: Oleksij Rempel<bug-track@fisher-privat.net> > >>>>> > >>>>> This patch makes _SxD/_SxW check follow the ACPI 4.0a specification > >>>>> more closely and fixes suspend bug found on ASUS Zenbook UX31E. > >>>>> > >>>>> Some OEM use _SxD fileds do blacklist brocken Dx states. > >>>>> If _SxD/_SxW return values are check before suspend as appropriate, > >>>>> some nasty suspend/resume issues may be avoided. > >>>>> > >>>>> References: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42728 > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Oleksij Rempel<bug-track@fisher-privat.net> > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki<rjw@sisk.pl> > >>>>> --- > >>>>> > >>>>> Bjorn, Len, > >>>>> > >>>>> This is -stable material and therefore v3.4 as well, IMO. �Please let me > >>>>> know if one of you can take it or whether you want me to handle it all the > >>>>> way to Linus. > >>>> > >>>> I'm OK with this from a PCI perspective. Most of the change is in > >>>> ACPI, so I propose that either you or Len take care of it. > >>>> > >>>> The second paragraph of the changelog has several typos > >>>> (fileds/fields, do/to, brocken/broken, etc). > >>> > >>> It also turns out that the normal wakeup mechanism doesn't work for the > >>> devices in question. Can this be detected by ACPI? We don't want to > >>> tell userspace that wakeup works when in fact it doesn't. > >> > >> hm... how about using pci config and acpi together. PCI config provides > >> map of Dx states and wakeup support of them. If pci says wakeup works > >> only on D0 and D3 and acpi say - we can use only D2 in S3, then there is > >> no wakeup. > > > > Not really. ACPI trumps PCI here, so if ACPI says we can use D2 in S3, > > then we can. > > > > ACPI device states are not the same as PCI device states. They usually map > > to each other directly, but they don't have to. > > I mean not just the mapping. > I mean PCI:PME_SUP field. If it PME(D0+,D1-,D2-,D3hot+,D3cold+), and > acpi trying to avoid D3 states for this device. then is is same like > PME(D0+,D1-,D2-)? Or not? Yes, if _S3D or _S3W are present. If they are not present and _PRW is, that means "don't care". > According to spec.: > 7.2 Device Power Management Objects (page 287) > _S3D - Highest D-state supported by the device in the S3 state > _S3W - Lowest D-state supported by the device in the S3 state which can > wake the system. > by definition if _S3W is specified then we can assume, the device can > wake? But _SxW is not defined. The device can wake up the system if _PRW is present for it (and for PCIe devices even that is not formally necessary). > Are there any other method to forbid the system use broken state, after > device was actually produced? Usual BIOS flash utility will probably no > rewrite the PCIs EEPROM. Only hope is ACPI, what is correct method to do > define it by ACPI? Define _S3D that will return 2 (for example) and _PRW returning 3 as the deepest sleep state the system may be woken up from. Then, we'll use D2 (after the @subject patch). The drawback is that the kernel will then think the device can wake up the system. Thanks, Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> To: "Oleksij Rempel (fishor)" <bug-track@fisher-privat.net> Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>, Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>, ACPI Devel Mailing List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>, Linux PM list <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Andrey Rahmatullin <wrar@wrar.name>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI / PCI: Make _SxD/_SxW check follow ACPI 4.0a spec Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 16:04:16 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <201205011604.16556.rjw@sisk.pl> (raw) In-Reply-To: <4F9F84F6.7000509@fisher-privat.net> On Tuesday, May 01, 2012, Oleksij Rempel (fishor) wrote: > On 30.04.2012 23:43, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Monday, April 30, 2012, Oleksij Rempel wrote: > >> On 30.04.2012 19:53, Alan Stern wrote: > >>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 2:44 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki<rjw@sisk.pl> wrote: > >>>>> From: Oleksij Rempel<bug-track@fisher-privat.net> > >>>>> > >>>>> This patch makes _SxD/_SxW check follow the ACPI 4.0a specification > >>>>> more closely and fixes suspend bug found on ASUS Zenbook UX31E. > >>>>> > >>>>> Some OEM use _SxD fileds do blacklist brocken Dx states. > >>>>> If _SxD/_SxW return values are check before suspend as appropriate, > >>>>> some nasty suspend/resume issues may be avoided. > >>>>> > >>>>> References: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42728 > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Oleksij Rempel<bug-track@fisher-privat.net> > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki<rjw@sisk.pl> > >>>>> --- > >>>>> > >>>>> Bjorn, Len, > >>>>> > >>>>> This is -stable material and therefore v3.4 as well, IMO. �Please let me > >>>>> know if one of you can take it or whether you want me to handle it all the > >>>>> way to Linus. > >>>> > >>>> I'm OK with this from a PCI perspective. Most of the change is in > >>>> ACPI, so I propose that either you or Len take care of it. > >>>> > >>>> The second paragraph of the changelog has several typos > >>>> (fileds/fields, do/to, brocken/broken, etc). > >>> > >>> It also turns out that the normal wakeup mechanism doesn't work for the > >>> devices in question. Can this be detected by ACPI? We don't want to > >>> tell userspace that wakeup works when in fact it doesn't. > >> > >> hm... how about using pci config and acpi together. PCI config provides > >> map of Dx states and wakeup support of them. If pci says wakeup works > >> only on D0 and D3 and acpi say - we can use only D2 in S3, then there is > >> no wakeup. > > > > Not really. ACPI trumps PCI here, so if ACPI says we can use D2 in S3, > > then we can. > > > > ACPI device states are not the same as PCI device states. They usually map > > to each other directly, but they don't have to. > > I mean not just the mapping. > I mean PCI:PME_SUP field. If it PME(D0+,D1-,D2-,D3hot+,D3cold+), and > acpi trying to avoid D3 states for this device. then is is same like > PME(D0+,D1-,D2-)? Or not? Yes, if _S3D or _S3W are present. If they are not present and _PRW is, that means "don't care". > According to spec.: > 7.2 Device Power Management Objects (page 287) > _S3D - Highest D-state supported by the device in the S3 state > _S3W - Lowest D-state supported by the device in the S3 state which can > wake the system. > by definition if _S3W is specified then we can assume, the device can > wake? But _SxW is not defined. The device can wake up the system if _PRW is present for it (and for PCIe devices even that is not formally necessary). > Are there any other method to forbid the system use broken state, after > device was actually produced? Usual BIOS flash utility will probably no > rewrite the PCIs EEPROM. Only hope is ACPI, what is correct method to do > define it by ACPI? Define _S3D that will return 2 (for example) and _PRW returning 3 as the deepest sleep state the system may be woken up from. Then, we'll use D2 (after the @subject patch). The drawback is that the kernel will then think the device can wake up the system. Thanks, Rafael
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-05-01 14:22 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2012-04-29 20:44 [PATCH] ACPI / PCI: Make _SxD/_SxW check follow ACPI 4.0a spec Rafael J. Wysocki 2012-04-30 16:03 ` Bjorn Helgaas 2012-04-30 17:53 ` Alan Stern 2012-04-30 17:53 ` Alan Stern 2012-04-30 21:30 ` Oleksij Rempel 2012-04-30 21:43 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2012-05-01 6:38 ` Oleksij Rempel (fishor) 2012-05-01 14:04 ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message] 2012-05-01 14:04 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2012-05-01 14:11 ` Alan Stern 2012-05-01 14:11 ` Alan Stern 2012-05-01 16:27 ` Oleksij Rempel (fishor) 2012-05-01 16:59 ` Alan Stern 2012-05-01 16:59 ` Alan Stern 2012-05-02 4:10 ` Oleksij Rempel (fishor) 2012-05-25 19:15 ` Alan Stern 2012-05-25 20:00 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2012-05-26 6:03 ` Oleksij Rempel (fishor) 2012-05-26 8:15 ` Oleksij Rempel 2012-05-26 20:21 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2012-04-30 21:32 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2012-04-30 21:32 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2012-04-30 21:41 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2012-04-30 21:38 ` Bjorn Helgaas 2012-04-30 21:38 ` Bjorn Helgaas 2012-05-10 20:14 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2012-05-10 20:14 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2012-07-11 0:08 ` Greg KH 2012-07-11 9:07 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2012-07-11 13:53 ` Greg KH 2012-07-11 19:04 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2012-07-11 19:20 ` Greg KH 2012-07-11 19:29 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2012-07-12 4:30 ` Ben Hutchings
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=201205011604.16556.rjw@sisk.pl \ --to=rjw@sisk.pl \ --cc=bhelgaas@google.com \ --cc=bug-track@fisher-privat.net \ --cc=lenb@kernel.org \ --cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \ --cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \ --cc=wrar@wrar.name \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.