Re: x86: Increase PCIBIOS_MIN_IO to 0x1500 to fix nForce 4 suspend-to-RAM

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Carlos Corbacho wrote:
On Tuesday 25 December 2007 13:26:12 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Well, citing from the ACPI 2.0 specification, section 9.1.6 Transitioning
from the Working to the Sleeping State (which is what we're discussing
here):

3. OSPM places all device drivers into their respective Dx state. If the
device is enabled for wake, it enters the Dx state associated with the wake
capability. If the device is not enabled to wake the system, it enters the
D3 state.
4. OSPM executes the _PTS control method, passing an argument that
indicates the desired sleeping state (1, 2, 3, or 4 representing S1, S2,
S3, and S4).

My opinion is that we should follow this part of the specification and so
we do.

This is that same section from ACPI 1.0B:

3. The OS executes the Prepare To Sleep (_PTS) control method, passing an
argument that indicates the desired sleeping state (1, 2, 3, or 4 representing
S1, S2, S3, and S4).

4. The OS places all device drivers into their respective Dx state. If the
device is enabled for wakeup, it enters the Dx state associated with the wakeup capability. If the device is not enabled to wakeup the system, it enters the D3 state.

The DSDTs in question also claim ACPI 1.0 compatiblity.

You're wrong, sorry.

No, I'm not entirely wrong - read the 1.0 spec, and read section 7.3.2 of the ACPI 2.0 spec.

* ACPI 1.0 is very clear - we are breaking the 1.0 spec

* ACPI 2.0 is contradictory - section 7.3.2 repeats 1.0 ad verbatim (which is what I quote in reply to Robert Hancock), but as you point out, 9.3.2 says the opposite.

So, 1.0 and 3.0 are very clear and rather different on this, and 2.0 is contradictory (and I presume this is one of the points ACPI 3.0 set out to clean up).

I will rescind my point on ACPI 2.0 - I don't know what we should or shouldn't be doing there, the spec is unclear.

But for ACPI 1.0, we are doing the wrong thing.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears ACPI 1.0 wants _PTS called before any devices are suspended, ACPI 2.0 is contradictory, and ACPI 3.0 says that you can't assume anything about device state. My guess is that unless Windows has different behavior depending on ACPI version, it probably has called _PTS before suspending devices all along. Therefore it would likely be safest to emulate that behavior, no?

--
Robert Hancock      Saskatoon, SK, Canada
To email, remove "nospam" from [email protected]
Home Page: http://www.roberthancock.com/

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux