On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 01:15:56AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, May 22, 2014 11:14:49 AM Mark Brown wrote:

> > > There are more weird cases still.  For example, we have the _DEP object in
> > > ACPI that basically says "this device depends on that one" and there may be
> > > no other relationship between the two whatsoever.  How are we supposed to
> > > implement this within the existing frameworks?

> > That sounds like something that should be baked into however ACPI is
> > hooked in already?

> No, it is not.  It is a relatively new addition to ACPI and we don't support
> it today.  That's because it hasn't been present in the ACPI tables of any
> production systems until recently.

> However, today we have systems with it shipping and we need to add support
> for it.

Sorry, I wasn't clear - what I meant was that it should be something
that can be handled based on information the ACPI implementation already
has, I had been under the impression it got notification of all the
basic PM transitions already?