lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jul]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/3] ACPI / PM: Only set power states of devices that are power manageable
Date
On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 07:43:48 AM Aaron Lu wrote:
> On 07/30/2013 06:21 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, July 29, 2013 10:09:53 PM Aaron Lu wrote:
> >> On 07/27/2013 09:10 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> >>>
> >>> Make acpi_device_set_power() check if the given device is power
> >>> manageable before checking if the given power state is valid for that
> >>> device. Otherwise it will print that "Device does not support" that
> >>> power state into the kernel log, which may not make sense for some
> >>> power states (D0 and D3cold are supported by all devices by
> >>> definition).
> >>
> >> It will not print "Device does not support" that power state if that
> >> power state is D0 or D3cold since we have unconditionally set those two
> >> power state's valid flag.
> >
> > So you didn't actually looked at acpi_bus_get_power_flags() that set the
> > power.states[].flags.valid flag, because If you had looked at it, you would
> > have seen that that's not the case.
> >
> > No, we don't set the valid flag for devices that aren't power manageable
> > (i.e. have flags.power_manageable unset), which is the *whole* *point* of
> > this change.
>
> Right, I missed this. Sorry for the noise.
>
> >
> >> OTOH, what value should we return for a device node that is not power
> >> manageable in acpi_device_set_power when the target state is D0 or D3
> >> cold? The old behavior is to return 0, meanning success without taking
> >> any actual action.
> >>
> >> In acpi_bus_set_power, if the device is not power manageable, we will
> >> return -ENODEV; in acpi_dev_pm_full/low_power, we will return 0 as in
> >> the original acpi_device_set_power. So return -EINVAL here is correct?
> >
> > No, the original acpi_device_set_power() will return -ENODEV then, but
> > in my opinion returning -EINVAL is more accurate, because "power
> > manageable" means "you can change power state of it".
>
> Shall I prepare a patch to update the errno in acpi_bus_set_power?

In fact, it doesn't need to check flags.power_manageable after this patch
and the debug message won't be missed I think, so please just remove
the whole if () from there, if that's not a problem.

Thanks,
Rafael


--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-07-30 16:21    [W:0.081 / U:0.120 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site