From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:52428) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RvS2I-0008Ne-NR for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 09 Feb 2012 06:19:40 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RvS2G-0000vT-8H for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 09 Feb 2012 06:19:34 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:30485) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RvS2F-0000vL-WC for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 09 Feb 2012 06:19:32 -0500 Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 13:19:28 +0200 From: Gleb Natapov Message-ID: <20120209111928.GH18866@redhat.com> References: <1328698819-31269-1-git-send-email-kraxel@redhat.com> <1328698819-31269-2-git-send-email-kraxel@redhat.com> <20120209084816.GB18866@redhat.com> <4F33A3C1.1080108@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4F33A3C1.1080108@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 1/6] suspend: add infrastructure List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Gerd Hoffmann Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Thu, Feb 09, 2012 at 11:45:21AM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > On 02/09/12 09:48, Gleb Natapov wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 12:00:14PM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > >> * qemu_system_wakeup_request is supposed to be called on events which > >> should wake up the guest. > >> > > qemu_system_wakeup_request() should get wakeup source as a parameter. > > There are ways to report it to a guest. > > Can we do that incrementally, when we actually implement the guest > reporting? > What do you mean by "when we actually implement the guest reporting"? The guest reporting is part of ACPI spec and implemented by all relevant guests. I think that adding wakeup source parameter to qemu_system_wakeup_request() and reporting RTC_STS and PWRBTN_STS should not complicate your patch series to much. I agree that DSDT magic required by other devices can wait for later. -- Gleb. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gleb Natapov Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/6] suspend: add infrastructure Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 13:19:28 +0200 Message-ID: <20120209111928.GH18866@redhat.com> References: <1328698819-31269-1-git-send-email-kraxel@redhat.com> <1328698819-31269-2-git-send-email-kraxel@redhat.com> <20120209084816.GB18866@redhat.com> <4F33A3C1.1080108@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4F33A3C1.1080108@redhat.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+gceq-qemu-devel=gmane.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+gceq-qemu-devel=gmane.org@nongnu.org To: Gerd Hoffmann Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Thu, Feb 09, 2012 at 11:45:21AM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > On 02/09/12 09:48, Gleb Natapov wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 12:00:14PM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > >> * qemu_system_wakeup_request is supposed to be called on events which > >> should wake up the guest. > >> > > qemu_system_wakeup_request() should get wakeup source as a parameter. > > There are ways to report it to a guest. > > Can we do that incrementally, when we actually implement the guest > reporting? > What do you mean by "when we actually implement the guest reporting"? The guest reporting is part of ACPI spec and implemented by all relevant guests. I think that adding wakeup source parameter to qemu_system_wakeup_request() and reporting RTC_STS and PWRBTN_STS should not complicate your patch series to much. I agree that DSDT magic required by other devices can wait for later. -- Gleb.