Rquestiing a power IRP
in [Device Drivers]
|
Prev: Eliminating non-optical disc devices when enumerating with GUID_DEVINTERFACE_CDROM
Next: DOCUMENTEVENT_STARTDOCPOST JobID
From: RossettoeCioccolato on 27 May 2010 01:03 Is there a way to let the PNP subsystem know that we need a device to power up or power down if we are not the power policy owner? We need to make sure that a device is powered up before we ask the device something. There are multiple API's to tell the OS that we need a specific system power state. But I do not see any way to notify a specific device. Sending a power IRP directly to the device will result in a WDF bugcheck when the verifier is running. The better approach would be to communicate our requirements to the PNP subsystem and let the OS do what it knows best. Regards, Rossetoecioccolato.
From: Pavel A. on 27 May 2010 03:43 "RossettoeCioccolato" <rossetoecioccolato(a)newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message news:eg3BGoV$KHA.5464(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > Is there a way to let the PNP subsystem know that we need a device to > power up or power down if we are not the power policy owner? We need to > make sure that a device is powered up before we ask the device something. > There are multiple API's to tell the OS that we need a specific system > power state. But I do not see any way to notify a specific device. > Sending a power IRP directly to the device will result in a WDF bugcheck > when the verifier is running. The better approach would be to communicate > our requirements to the PNP subsystem and let the OS do what it knows > best. > > Regards, > > Rossetoecioccolato. In other words, you ask why there is a PPO? Everyone should be allowed to manage power of any device? -- pa
From: RossettoeCioccolato on 27 May 2010 12:14 Pavel, > In other words, you ask why there is a PPO? > Everyone should be allowed to manage power of any device? > My question does not even remotely suggest that. If I ask the PPO owner, either directly or through the PnP subsystem, to power up the device and the PPO owner determines that it is able to comply, how does that violate PPO ownership. I must say that this is the least helpful of all the Microsoft newsgroups. Responses to posts, if they occur at all, rarely contain any useful information and almost always display a high level of attitude. What is the justification for this lack of professionalism? Regards, Rossetoecioccolato.
From: Doron Holan [MSFT] on 27 May 2010 18:55 just send the io request through the PPO driver. the PPO driver will then power on the device before sending the request down the stack/to the hardware. if you are sitting below the PPO in the stack, you are a little stuck because you probably are sending io requests that should not go through the PPO d "RossettoeCioccolato" wrote in message news:uTJb$eb$KHA.5292(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... Pavel, > In other words, you ask why there is a PPO? > Everyone should be allowed to manage power of any device? > My question does not even remotely suggest that. If I ask the PPO owner, either directly or through the PnP subsystem, to power up the device and the PPO owner determines that it is able to comply, how does that violate PPO ownership. I must say that this is the least helpful of all the Microsoft newsgroups. Responses to posts, if they occur at all, rarely contain any useful information and almost always display a high level of attitude. What is the justification for this lack of professionalism? Regards, Rossetoecioccolato.
From: RossettoeCioccolato on 27 May 2010 21:35
Doron, Thanks. I can just rely on the PPO to do the right thing then. Regards, Rossetoecioccolato. "Doron Holan [MSFT]" <doronh(a)online.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:eFvcv%23e$KHA.5476(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > just send the io request through the PPO driver. the PPO driver will then > power on the device before sending the request down the stack/to the > hardware. if you are sitting below the PPO in the stack, you are a little > stuck because you probably are sending io requests that should not go > through the PPO > > d > |