On Sunday 07 January 2007 00:54, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Sat, Jan 06, 2007 at 02:21:41PM -0800, David Brownell wrote: > > > Please tell me you mean "devices with a /sys/devices/.../power/wakeup" > > attribute. And that ACPI is finally going to start working with those > > attributes ...
I agree that must be the goal. > It's not necessarily possible to map from an ACPI object with a wakeup > capability to a Linux device, so there's going to have to be some degree > of interface nastiness. However, some devices can be sensibly mapped, > and ideally those should be integrated into > /sys/devices/.../power/wakeup. True. Some ACPI "devices" don't exist except for in ACPI mode. Rui exposed them in some earlier patches in the sysfs patch series which are now in -mm via git-acpi.patch. > However, I'm not entirely sure /how/ that integration should happen. If > both the Linux driver and ACPI know how to enable wakeup for a device, > what should writing to power/wakeup do? > > > > So /proc/acpi/wakeup is deprecated by > > > /sys/devices/acpi_system/.../xxx/sleep_state && wakeup. > > > > Why is ACPI still not coupling such information to the REAL device > > nodes? On my laptop, right now without any wakeup-capable USB > > devices attached, the appended script produces: > > So for example, the PCI0 device on my Thinkpad is an ACPI wakeup device. > Investigating the DSDT suggests that this is just a wrapper around a > bunch of platform devices, including the ISA bridge. In this case, what > real device should we be associating it with? yeah, we'll have to figure out what that really means. thanks, -Len - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
