On Tue, 25 Dec 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > 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?
>
> Well, I don't think so.
It would *definitely* always be safest to emulate what Windows does.
> In fact ACPI 3.0 repeats the 2.0 wording in section 9.1.6 (so the current
> requirement seems to be to put devices into low power states before calling
> _PTS) and I _guess_ there was a change in the default behavior of Windows that
> caused the specification to be modified (I'd bet that was between 2000 and XP
> or something like this).
You seem to put a lot of trust in a piece of documentation.
Do you realize how those pieces of paper are written? They are written by
people who have absolutely *nothing* to do with the actual implementation,
and whose job it is to write documentation. And while the people who
actually do the programming etc are supposed to help them, the two parties
generally detest each other.
Technical writers hate the "real engineers" for not helping them, and the
"real engineers" tend to dislike having to be pestered to explain their
stuff and have to read through some document that isn't meant for them,
but that they need to sign off on.
In other words: please do *not* expect that the documentation actually
matches reality. You seem to think that the documentation came first
and/or is quite accurate. That's not at all likely to be true.
> IMO, we should check which version of the specification we're supposed to
> follow, on the basis of FADT contents, for example, and follow this one.
No, we should try to figure out what Windows does. *If* windows checks the
version, we should do that too. But we should absolutely *not* just assume
that the documentation is an accurate picture of reality.
Does anybody know how we could find out?
Linus
--
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]
