From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Darren Hart Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] platform/x86: fujitsu-laptop: do not update ACPI device power status Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 13:17:27 -0700 Message-ID: <20170621201727.GC25900@fury> References: <20170616044058.30443-1-kernel@kempniu.pl> <20170616044058.30443-6-kernel@kempniu.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170616044058.30443-6-kernel@kempniu.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: =?utf-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBLxJlwaWXFhA==?= Cc: Jonathan Woithe , Andy Shevchenko , platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org 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