Re: [PATCH] ACPI / PCI: Make _SxD/_SxW check follow ACPI 4.0a spec

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

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@xxxxxxx>  wrote:
> >>>>> From: Oleksij Rempel<bug-track@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki<rjw@xxxxxxx>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Bjorn, Len,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is -stable material and therefore v3.4 as well, IMO. ïPlease 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-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/