From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Prarit Bhargava Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI: Execute the _PTS method when system reboot Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 05:59:38 -0400 Message-ID: <574D608A.1070102@redhat.com> References: <1462772495-71113-1-git-send-email-hehy1@lenovo.com> <574429C7.3050101@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=gbk Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:43772 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750696AbcEaJ7l (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 May 2016 05:59:41 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Ocean HY1 He , "jcm@redhat.com" Cc: "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , David Tanaka , Nagananda Chumbalkar , "rjw@rjwysocki.net" , "lenb@kernel.org" , "wefu@redhat.com" On 05/29/2016 11:28 PM, Ocean HY1 He wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Prarit Bhargava [mailto:prarit@redhat.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 6:16 PM >> To: Ocean HY1 He; jcm@redhat.com >> Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; David = Tanaka; >> Nagananda Chumbalkar; rjw@rjwysocki.net; lenb@kernel.org; >> wefu@redhat.com >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI: Execute the _PTS method when system reboo= t >> >> >> >> On 05/24/2016 02:41 AM, Ocean HY1 He wrote: >>> Hi Prarit and Jon, >>> >>> How do you think of this? >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Ocean He / =BA=CE=BA=A3=D1=F3 >>> SW Development Dept. >>> Beijing Design Center >>> Enterprise Product Group >>> Mobile: 18911778926 >>> E-mail: hehy1@lenovo.com >>> No.6 Chuang Ye Road, Haidian District, Beijing, China 100085 >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Ocean HY1 He >>> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 11:04 AM >>> To: rjw@rjwysocki.net; lenb@kernel.org >>> Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; David >> Tanaka; Nagananda Chumbalkar >>> Subject: RE: [PATCH] ACPI: Execute the _PTS method when system >> reboot >>> >>> To whom may concern, >>> >>> A Lenovo feature depends on _PTS method execution when reboot. And >> after check the ACPI spec, I think _PTS should be exectued when rebo= o. >> This patch could fix the problem. >>> >>> Any comments of this patch? Many thanks! >>> >>> Ocean He / =BA=CE=BA=A3=D1=F3 >>> SW Development Dept. >>> Beijing Design Center >>> Enterprise Product Group >>> Mobile: 18911778926 >>> E-mail: hehy1@lenovo.com >>> No.6 Chuang Ye Road, Haidian District, Beijing, China 100085 >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Ocean HY1 He >>> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 1:50 PM >>> To: rjw@rjwysocki.net; lenb@kernel.org >>> Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; David >> Tanaka; Ocean HY1 He; Nagananda Chumbalkar >>> Subject: [PATCH] ACPI: Execute the _PTS method when system reboot >>> >>> The _PTS control method is defined in the section 7.4.1 of acpi 6.0 >>> spec. The _PTS control method is executed by the OS during the slee= p >>> transition process for S1, S2, S3, S4, and for orderly S5 shutdown. >>> The sleeping state value (For example, 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 for the S5 >>> soft-off state) is passed to the _PTS control method. This method >>> is called after OSPM has notified native device drivers of the slee= p >>> state transition and before the OSPM has had a chance to fully >>> prepare the system for a sleep state transition. >>> >>> The _PTS control method provides the BIOS a mechanism for performin= g >>> some housekeeping, such as writing the sleep type value to the >> embedded >>> controller, before entering the system sleeping state. >>> >>> According to section 7.5 of acpi 6.0 spec, _PTS should run after _T= TS. >>> >>> Thus, a _PTS block notifier is added to the reboot notifier list so= that >>> the _PTS object will also be evaluated when the system reboot. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Ocean He >>> Signed-off-by: Nagananda Chumbalkar >>> --- >>> drivers/acpi/sleep.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/sleep.c b/drivers/acpi/sleep.c >>> index 2a8b596..8b290fb 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/acpi/sleep.c >>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/sleep.c >>> @@ -55,6 +55,26 @@ static struct notifier_block tts_notifier =3D { >>> .priority =3D 0, >>> }; >>> >>> +static int pts_notify_reboot(struct notifier_block *this, >>> + unsigned long code, void *x) >>> +{ >>> + acpi_status status; >>> + >>> + status =3D acpi_execute_simple_method(NULL, "\\_PTS", >> ACPI_STATE_S5); >>> + if (ACPI_FAILURE(status) && status !=3D AE_NOT_FOUND) { >>> + /* It won't break anything. */ >>> + printk(KERN_NOTICE "Failure in evaluating _PTS object\n"); >> >> ^^^^ >> pr_debug("No _PTS object found.\n"); >> >> It isn't a warning or error, so don't put the word "Failure" in ther= e. >> >> Beyond that, looks entirely reasonable to me. >> >> P. >> > Hi Prarit, >=20 > The message outputs when _PTS is found but fail to execute. I copy th= is code > from existed function acpi_sleep_tts_switch(). I just wants to keep n= ew codes > as the same style as existed codes. Make sense? ;-) Not really. "Failure" is something that QE groups look for when testin= g, debugging, or verifying. This message implies something went wrong whe= n the _PTS object is an optional implementation of ACPI. P. >=20 > Ocean. >> >>> + } >>> + >>> + return NOTIFY_DONE; >>> +} >>> + >>> +static struct notifier_block pts_notifier =3D { >>> + .notifier_call =3D pts_notify_reboot, >>> + .next =3D NULL, >>> + .priority =3D 0, >>> +}; >>> + >>> static int acpi_sleep_prepare(u32 acpi_state) >>> { >>> #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP >>> @@ -896,5 +916,12 @@ int __init acpi_sleep_init(void) >>> * object can also be evaluated when the system enters S5. >>> */ >>> register_reboot_notifier(&tts_notifier); >>> + >>> + /* >>> + * According to section 7.5 of acpi 6.0 spec, _PTS should run aft= er >>> + * _TTS when the system enters S5. >>> + */ >>> + register_reboot_notifier(&pts_notifier); >>> + >>> return 0; >>> } >>> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750887AbcEaJ7n (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 May 2016 05:59:43 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:43772 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750696AbcEaJ7l (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 May 2016 05:59:41 -0400 Message-ID: <574D608A.1070102@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 05:59:38 -0400 From: Prarit Bhargava User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ocean HY1 He , "jcm@redhat.com" CC: "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , David Tanaka , Nagananda Chumbalkar , "rjw@rjwysocki.net" , "lenb@kernel.org" , "wefu@redhat.com" Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI: Execute the _PTS method when system reboot References: <1462772495-71113-1-git-send-email-hehy1@lenovo.com> <574429C7.3050101@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=gbk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.39]); Tue, 31 May 2016 09:59:40 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 05/29/2016 11:28 PM, Ocean HY1 He wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Prarit Bhargava [mailto:prarit@redhat.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 6:16 PM >> To: Ocean HY1 He; jcm@redhat.com >> Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; David Tanaka; >> Nagananda Chumbalkar; rjw@rjwysocki.net; lenb@kernel.org; >> wefu@redhat.com >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI: Execute the _PTS method when system reboot >> >> >> >> On 05/24/2016 02:41 AM, Ocean HY1 He wrote: >>> Hi Prarit and Jon, >>> >>> How do you think of this? >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Ocean He / ºÎº£Ñó >>> SW Development Dept. >>> Beijing Design Center >>> Enterprise Product Group >>> Mobile: 18911778926 >>> E-mail: hehy1@lenovo.com >>> No.6 Chuang Ye Road, Haidian District, Beijing, China 100085 >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Ocean HY1 He >>> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 11:04 AM >>> To: rjw@rjwysocki.net; lenb@kernel.org >>> Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; David >> Tanaka; Nagananda Chumbalkar >>> Subject: RE: [PATCH] ACPI: Execute the _PTS method when system >> reboot >>> >>> To whom may concern, >>> >>> A Lenovo feature depends on _PTS method execution when reboot. And >> after check the ACPI spec, I think _PTS should be exectued when reboo. >> This patch could fix the problem. >>> >>> Any comments of this patch? Many thanks! >>> >>> Ocean He / ºÎº£Ñó >>> SW Development Dept. >>> Beijing Design Center >>> Enterprise Product Group >>> Mobile: 18911778926 >>> E-mail: hehy1@lenovo.com >>> No.6 Chuang Ye Road, Haidian District, Beijing, China 100085 >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Ocean HY1 He >>> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 1:50 PM >>> To: rjw@rjwysocki.net; lenb@kernel.org >>> Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; David >> Tanaka; Ocean HY1 He; Nagananda Chumbalkar >>> Subject: [PATCH] ACPI: Execute the _PTS method when system reboot >>> >>> The _PTS control method is defined in the section 7.4.1 of acpi 6.0 >>> spec. The _PTS control method is executed by the OS during the sleep >>> transition process for S1, S2, S3, S4, and for orderly S5 shutdown. >>> The sleeping state value (For example, 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 for the S5 >>> soft-off state) is passed to the _PTS control method. This method >>> is called after OSPM has notified native device drivers of the sleep >>> state transition and before the OSPM has had a chance to fully >>> prepare the system for a sleep state transition. >>> >>> The _PTS control method provides the BIOS a mechanism for performing >>> some housekeeping, such as writing the sleep type value to the >> embedded >>> controller, before entering the system sleeping state. >>> >>> According to section 7.5 of acpi 6.0 spec, _PTS should run after _TTS. >>> >>> Thus, a _PTS block notifier is added to the reboot notifier list so that >>> the _PTS object will also be evaluated when the system reboot. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Ocean He >>> Signed-off-by: Nagananda Chumbalkar >>> --- >>> drivers/acpi/sleep.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/sleep.c b/drivers/acpi/sleep.c >>> index 2a8b596..8b290fb 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/acpi/sleep.c >>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/sleep.c >>> @@ -55,6 +55,26 @@ static struct notifier_block tts_notifier = { >>> .priority = 0, >>> }; >>> >>> +static int pts_notify_reboot(struct notifier_block *this, >>> + unsigned long code, void *x) >>> +{ >>> + acpi_status status; >>> + >>> + status = acpi_execute_simple_method(NULL, "\\_PTS", >> ACPI_STATE_S5); >>> + if (ACPI_FAILURE(status) && status != AE_NOT_FOUND) { >>> + /* It won't break anything. */ >>> + printk(KERN_NOTICE "Failure in evaluating _PTS object\n"); >> >> ^^^^ >> pr_debug("No _PTS object found.\n"); >> >> It isn't a warning or error, so don't put the word "Failure" in there. >> >> Beyond that, looks entirely reasonable to me. >> >> P. >> > Hi Prarit, > > The message outputs when _PTS is found but fail to execute. I copy this code > from existed function acpi_sleep_tts_switch(). I just wants to keep new codes > as the same style as existed codes. Make sense? ;-) Not really. "Failure" is something that QE groups look for when testing, debugging, or verifying. This message implies something went wrong when the _PTS object is an optional implementation of ACPI. P. > > Ocean. >> >>> + } >>> + >>> + return NOTIFY_DONE; >>> +} >>> + >>> +static struct notifier_block pts_notifier = { >>> + .notifier_call = pts_notify_reboot, >>> + .next = NULL, >>> + .priority = 0, >>> +}; >>> + >>> static int acpi_sleep_prepare(u32 acpi_state) >>> { >>> #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP >>> @@ -896,5 +916,12 @@ int __init acpi_sleep_init(void) >>> * object can also be evaluated when the system enters S5. >>> */ >>> register_reboot_notifier(&tts_notifier); >>> + >>> + /* >>> + * According to section 7.5 of acpi 6.0 spec, _PTS should run after >>> + * _TTS when the system enters S5. >>> + */ >>> + register_reboot_notifier(&pts_notifier); >>> + >>> return 0; >>> } >>>