Re: [PATCH] ACPI: Execute the _PTS method when system reboot

[Prarit Bhargava]

On 05/24/2016 02:41 AM, Ocean HY1 He wrote:
> Hi Prarit and Jon,
> 
> How do you think of this?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Ocean He / 何海洋
> SW Development Dept. 
> Beijing Design Center
> Enterprise Product Group
> Mobile: 18911778926
> E-mail: hehy1@xxxxxxxxxx
> No.6 Chuang Ye Road, Haidian District, Beijing, China 100085
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ocean HY1 He 
> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 11:04 AM
> To: rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; lenb@xxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; David Tanaka; Nagananda Chumbalkar
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] ACPI: Execute the _PTS method when system reboot
> 
> To whom may concern,
> 
> A Lenovo feature depends on _PTS method execution when reboot. And after check the ACPI spec, I think _PTS should be exectued when reboo. This patch could fix the problem.
> 
> Any comments of this patch? Many thanks!
> 
> Ocean He / 何海洋
> SW Development Dept. 
> Beijing Design Center
> Enterprise Product Group
> Mobile: 18911778926
> E-mail: hehy1@xxxxxxxxxx
> No.6 Chuang Ye Road, Haidian District, Beijing, China 100085
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ocean HY1 He 
> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 1:50 PM
> To: rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; lenb@xxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; David Tanaka; Ocean HY1 He; Nagananda Chumbalkar
> Subject: [PATCH] ACPI: Execute the _PTS method when system reboot
> 
> The _PTS control method is defined in the section 7.4.1 of acpi 6.0
> spec. The _PTS control method is executed by the OS during the sleep
> transition process for S1, S2, S3, S4, and for orderly S5 shutdown.
> The sleeping state value (For example, 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 for the S5
> soft-off state) is passed to the _PTS control method. This method
> is called after OSPM has notified native device drivers of the sleep
> state transition and before the OSPM has had a chance to fully
> prepare the system for a sleep state transition.
> 
> The _PTS control method provides the BIOS a mechanism for performing
> some housekeeping, such as writing the sleep type value to the embedded
> controller, before entering the system sleeping state.
> 
> According to section 7.5 of acpi 6.0 spec, _PTS should run after _TTS.
> 
> Thus, a _PTS block notifier is added to the reboot notifier list so that
> the _PTS object will also be evaluated when the system reboot.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ocean He <hehy1@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Nagananda Chumbalkar <nchumbalkar@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/acpi/sleep.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 27 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/sleep.c b/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
> index 2a8b596..8b290fb 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
> @@ -55,6 +55,26 @@ static struct notifier_block tts_notifier = {
>  	.priority	= 0,
>  };
>  
> +static int pts_notify_reboot(struct notifier_block *this,
> +			unsigned long code, void *x)
> +{
> +	acpi_status status;
> +
> +	status = acpi_execute_simple_method(NULL, "\\_PTS", ACPI_STATE_S5);
> +	if (ACPI_FAILURE(status) && status != AE_NOT_FOUND) {
> +		/* It won't break anything. */
> +		printk(KERN_NOTICE "Failure in evaluating _PTS object\n");

^^^^
	pr_debug("No _PTS object found.\n");

It isn't a warning or error, so don't put the word "Failure" in there.

Beyond that, looks entirely reasonable to me.

P.


> +	}
> +
> +	return NOTIFY_DONE;
> +}
> +
> +static struct notifier_block pts_notifier = {
> +	.notifier_call	= pts_notify_reboot,
> +	.next		= NULL,
> +	.priority	= 0,
> +};
> +
>  static int acpi_sleep_prepare(u32 acpi_state)
>  {
>  #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP
> @@ -896,5 +916,12 @@ int __init acpi_sleep_init(void)
>  	 * object can also be evaluated when the system enters S5.
>  	 */
>  	register_reboot_notifier(&tts_notifier);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * According to section 7.5 of acpi 6.0 spec, _PTS should run after
> +	 * _TTS when the system enters S5.
> +	 */
> +	register_reboot_notifier(&pts_notifier);
> +
>  	return 0;
>  }
>