[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0iWCxXSw3fBbesoMEWqGrRL9xrD85pMoW8rPuBBwTayhw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2025 19:42:40 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@...labora.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-input@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...labora.com, superm1@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] ACPI: button: Cancel hibernation if button is pressed
during hibernation
On Fri, Nov 7, 2025 at 7:45 PM Muhammad Usama Anjum
<usama.anjum@...labora.com> wrote:
>
> acpi_pm_wakeup_event() is called from acpi_button_notify() which is
> called when power button is pressed. The system is worken up from s2idle
> in this case by setting hard parameter to pm_wakeup_dev_event().
Right, so presumably you want to set it for hibernation too.
> Call acpi_pm_wakeup_event() if power button is pressed and hibernation
> is in progress.
Well, this is not what the code does after the change.
> Set the hard parameter such that pm_system_wakeup()
> gets called which increments pm_abort_suspend counter. The explicit call
> to acpi_pm_wakeup_event() is necessary as ACPI button device has the
> wakeup source. Hence call to input_report_key() with input device
> doesn't call pm_system_wakeup() as it doesn't have wakeup source
> registered.
>
> Hence hibernation would be cancelled as in hibernation path, this counter
> is checked if it should be aborted.
>
> Signed-off-by: Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@...labora.com>
> ---
> Changes since RFC:
> - Use pm_sleep_transition_in_progress()
> - Update descriptin why explicit call to acpi_pm_wakeup_event() is
> necessary
> ---
> drivers/acpi/button.c | 12 +++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/button.c b/drivers/acpi/button.c
> index 3c6dd9b4ba0ad..e4be5c763edaf 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/button.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/button.c
> @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@
> #include <linux/acpi.h>
> #include <linux/dmi.h>
> #include <acpi/button.h>
> +#include <linux/suspend.h>
>
> #define ACPI_BUTTON_CLASS "button"
> #define ACPI_BUTTON_FILE_STATE "state"
> @@ -458,11 +459,16 @@ static void acpi_button_notify(acpi_handle handle, u32 event, void *data)
> acpi_pm_wakeup_event(&device->dev);
The above is what you want to change, as this already reports the
event. Reporting it twice is unnecessary and potentially confusing.
> button = acpi_driver_data(device);
> - if (button->suspended || event == ACPI_BUTTON_NOTIFY_WAKE)
> - return;
> -
> input = button->input;
> keycode = test_bit(KEY_SLEEP, input->keybit) ? KEY_SLEEP : KEY_POWER;
> + if (event == ACPI_BUTTON_NOTIFY_STATUS && keycode == KEY_POWER &&
> + pm_sleep_transition_in_progress()) {
> + pm_wakeup_dev_event(&device->dev, 0, true);
> + return;
> + }
First, this will affect suspend too.
Second, this reports an already reported wakeup event.
Next, why KEY_POWER only? Is KEY_SLEEP not expected to wake up?
And why event == ACPI_BUTTON_NOTIFY_STATUS? Isn't this what
ACPI_BUTTON_NOTIFY_WAKE is for?
> +
> + if (button->suspended || event == ACPI_BUTTON_NOTIFY_WAKE)
> + return;
>
> input_report_key(input, keycode, 1);
> input_sync(input);
> --
Powered by blists - more mailing lists