From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F23197FE for ; Sat, 24 May 2014 10:54:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mezzanine.sirena.org.uk (mezzanine.sirena.org.uk [106.187.55.193]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 91EE01F895 for ; Sat, 24 May 2014 10:54:38 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 24 May 2014 11:53:28 +0100 From: Mark Brown To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Message-ID: <20140524105328.GO22111@sirena.org.uk> References: <1872038.43ncqEMWSx@avalon> <6638836.llWl1tdgvD@vostro.rjw.lan> <20140522101449.GB12304@sirena.org.uk> <1638523.rqHsXd5Z1n@vostro.rjw.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="6o5AAeie4QQ7Mfd3" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1638523.rqHsXd5Z1n@vostro.rjw.lan> Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [TECH TOPIC] PM dependencies List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --6o5AAeie4QQ7Mfd3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline 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? --6o5AAeie4QQ7Mfd3 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJTgHogAAoJELSic+t+oim9mPsP/jZIkA3I87cbuGKj3hZfEelG so4Y6SKa4GPTa8rG8AlobTHpc6FgzLf9qumN77pCkE5aFUPE81yRfUhi1PA5Z4E7 +OYiuxxFd0lXpcEE94hXu4NpclaDreqbCDHDNRpQBMGJ91Fs4Oaz7kOnuIhxSp5M nish2rYJ4aA1Em35kSJktm8jNeXvsJmYE6l9SqBpdT8xCnPMWH8JLlNyaw0qwfZu 6ZLV9koIQEMjJgV2vcFNzSCYdeKJigZxdCzun0oouFmFHqdcsA5gkvp4y4qa4cDf 9jA24E0cii5j9s9XnZ+yVFh4wKEE6lGNxPaRFdxpuZeHJ/SjGyqaSu7nbdHL8456 OARhbZ1jDhsMxWgfZsEbkcOSwuTkzkqk0l0t+qLC1W8UEl3LYTtRAW+J3+hqGfs1 WwxwemHJwXbRCGU/tWHkVpmeNVd7xnZs9MzCOe1c4raVY9a3v0lPd/PiPNWwxnnb rxep105yKQcFpaZDib04iBswI6X5AFH89bJNzvp+r+R+5JRZr2SITuEA8ONoSEhy 01ARHHaa5ZG22RRZLShOGxmJljbjMFVcm/7Ol0z7JfTQaAPqceYS9yK6rgauwWsE b57otxW49p+sA/igzIItFGgFDcaIGCgBb2cq/fZ4y8oBq8mkpruX5kNoLs+tbcoA DdE7s5uN3mTblQw2mL9I =Xmze -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --6o5AAeie4QQ7Mfd3--