ACPI power off regression in 2.6.23-rc8 (NOT in rc7) - Kernel

This is a discussion on ACPI power off regression in 2.6.23-rc8 (NOT in rc7) - Kernel ; On Tuesday, 25 September 2007 17:40, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 08:51:09 +0200 Damien Wyart wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > After testing rc8, I noticed that I couldn't power off ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 32 of 32

Thread: ACPI power off regression in 2.6.23-rc8 (NOT in rc7)

  1. Re: ACPI power off regression in 2.6.23-rc8 (NOT in rc7)

    On Tuesday, 25 September 2007 17:40, Linus Torvalds wrote:
    >
    > On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 08:51:09 +0200 Damien Wyart wrote:
    > >
    > > Hello,
    > >
    > > After testing rc8, I noticed that I couldn't power off the computer
    > > directly, it only got halted and I had to press the power button
    > > manually. Just before displaying "System halted", the following message
    > > is displayed:
    > >
    > > ACPI : PCI interrupt for device 0000:02:08.0 disabled
    > >
    > > I had to first revert 5a50fe709d527f31169263e36601dd83446d5744 then
    > > f216cc3748a3a22c2b99390fddcdafa0583791a2 (handling of Sx states) to
    > > recover previous behaviour.

    >
    > Hmm. Those things *do* seem to be suspicious.
    >
    > For example, those commits seem to move code that used to be inside
    > CONFIG_PM (which pretty much *everybody* has) to be inside
    > CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP (which is a totally different thing, and depends on
    > whether the user asked for suspend support or not!
    >
    > Damien - does it work if you ask for SUSPEND or HIBERNATION support?
    >
    > Len - why are you guys moving stuff into CONFIG_PM_SLEEP? I know you seem
    > to think that absolutely *everybody* should always support suspend and
    > hibernation, but the fact is, not everybody does. And it's a totally
    > separate thing for normal ACPI CPU runstate support that people have used
    > to manage a *running* CPU (and shutting it down).


    This was a mistake and fixes have already been posted:

    http://marc.info/?l=linux-acpi&m=119052970904643&w=4
    http://marc.info/?l=linux-acpi&m=119073173625910&w=4

    Greetings,
    Rafael
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  2. Re: ACPI power off regression in 2.6.23-rc8 (NOT in rc7)

    On Tuesday, 25 September 2007 16:45, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
    > Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
    > > On Tuesday, 25 September 2007 16:19, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
    > >> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
    > >>> On Tuesday, 25 September 2007 15:15, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
    > >>>> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
    > >>>>> On Tuesday, 25 September 2007 14:53, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
    > >>>>>> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
    > >>>>>>> On Tuesday, 25 September 2007 14:05, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
    > >>>>>>>> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
    > >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 25 September 2007 13:45, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
    > >>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 25 September 2007 11:58, Damien Wyart wrote:
    > >>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I do not have CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP set,
    > >>>>>>>>>>>>> because I do not have CONFIG_PM_SLEEP set,
    > >>>>>>>>>>>>> because I do not want SUSPEND and/or HIBERNATION.
    > >>>>>>>>>>>> Same answer from my side: I do not have CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP for the same
    > >>>>>>>>>>>> reason (and this worked fine without them in rc7). I do not think
    > >>>>>>>>>>>> these settings should have changed between rc7 and rc8.
    > >>>>>>>>>> Well, we haven't changed much.
    > >>>>>>>>>>
    > >>>>>>>>>>> Also, another test I just did: on another computer, rc8 is fine
    > >>>>>>>>>>> regarding ACPI power off, even if CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP is not set. I can
    > >>>>>>>>>>> provide config if needed.
    > >>>>>>>>>> On the box that fails to power off, can you please test -rc8 with these two
    > >>>>>>>>>> commits reverted:
    > >>>>>>>>>>
    > >>>>>>>>>> commit 5a50fe709d527f31169263e36601dd83446d5744
    > >>>>>>>>>> ACPI: suspend: consolidate handling of Sx states addendum
    > >>>>>>>>>>
    > >>>>>>>>>> commit f216cc3748a3a22c2b99390fddcdafa0583791a2
    > >>>>>>>>>> ACPI: suspend: consolidate handling of Sx states.
    > >>>>>>>>>>
    > >>>>>>>>>> and see if it works?
    > >>>>>>>>> If it does, please test the patch from this message
    > >>>>>>>>>
    > >>>>>>>>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=119052978117735&w=4
    > >>>>>>>>>
    > >>>>>>>>> on top of vanilla 2.6.23-rc8.
    > >>>>>>>> You will need one more patch on top of just mentioned one.
    > >>>>>>> Hm, why did you put acpi_target_sleep_state under CONFIG_SUSPEND?
    > >>>>>>>
    > >>>>>>> CONFIG_HIBERNATION needs acpi_target_sleep_state too.
    > >>>>>> Agree, attaching updated patch.
    > >>>>> Well, please use "ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP" instead of
    > >>>>> "if defined(CONFIG_SUSPEND)||defined(CONFIG_HIBERNATIO N)",
    > >>>>> as you did with the second block.
    > >>>> I was thinking about that, but it seem to be less clear...
    > >>>> We need this variable only for suspend or hibernation, nothing else.
    > >>>> with pm_sleep it is not visible at all.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Thoughts?
    > >>> Well, PM_SLEEP is defined as (SUSPEND || HIBERNATION), please have a look
    > >>> at kernel/power/Kconfig, and it was introduced exactly for the conditions like
    > >>> this.
    > >> I've seen this then I wrote the patch See my point, it is not clear,
    > >> that PM_SLEEP is equivalent to SUSPEND || HIBERNATION, one needs to
    > >> grep Kconfig files to find that -- it means that code becomes less readable,
    > >> and I would like to avoid that.

    > >
    > > I see your point. Still, you are using PM_SLEEP in the same file, so someone
    > > reading the code for the first time will have to find out what it is anyway.

    > In the second place it depends on header file using PM_SLEEP, so it makes sense.
    > >
    > > OTOH, the only function of PM_SLEEP is to be a replacement for
    > > (SUSPEND || HIBERNATION). It has no other meaning whatsoever.
    > >
    > > [Well, sorry, I couldn't invent a better name.]
    > >
    > >>> IOW, if we want something to be used for anything else than suspend or
    > >>> hibernation, it shouldn't be defined under PM_SLEEP.
    > >> Agree, but we should distinguish there it is better to use PM_SLEEP,
    > >> and there it is better to use (SUSPEND || HIBERNATION) just to be more expressive...

    > >
    > > Well, since PM_SLEEP is used as (SUSPEND || HIBERNATION) everywhere else,
    > > I think that it would actually be confusing not to use it here. :-)

    > Ok, patch is here.


    Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki

    and thanks for fixing this.
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  3. Re: ACPI power off regression in 2.6.23-rc8 (NOT in rc7)

    Andrew,

    There are 2 patches, this is the second.
    Above, Rafael gave link to first. Here it is again:
    http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=119052978117735&w=4

    Sorry for confusion,
    Alex.

    Andrew Morton wrote:
    > On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 18:45:15 +0400 Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
    >
    >> [fix-ACPI_SLEEP_states.patch text/x-patch (2.0KB)]
    >> ACPI: suspend: fix ACPI_SLEEP states
    >>
    >> From: Alexey Starikovskiy
    >>
    >> Signed-off-by: Alexey Starikovskiy
    >> ---
    >>
    >> drivers/acpi/sleep/Makefile | 2 +-
    >> drivers/acpi/sleep/main.c | 4 ++++
    >> include/acpi/acpi_drivers.h | 4 ----
    >> 3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

    >
    > I get a reject applying this to current mainline. Easy enough to fix it,
    > but I worry that the fix might be incorrect when applied to some tree other
    > than that which you were working on.
    >
    >


    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  4. Re: ACPI power off regression in 2.6.23-rc8 (NOT in rc7)

    On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 18:45:15 +0400 Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:

    > [fix-ACPI_SLEEP_states.patch text/x-patch (2.0KB)]
    > ACPI: suspend: fix ACPI_SLEEP states
    >
    > From: Alexey Starikovskiy
    >
    > Signed-off-by: Alexey Starikovskiy
    > ---
    >
    > drivers/acpi/sleep/Makefile | 2 +-
    > drivers/acpi/sleep/main.c | 4 ++++
    > include/acpi/acpi_drivers.h | 4 ----
    > 3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)


    I get a reject applying this to current mainline. Easy enough to fix it,
    but I worry that the fix might be incorrect when applied to some tree other
    than that which you were working on.

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  5. Re: ACPI power off regression in 2.6.23-rc8 (NOT in rc7)

    On 9/25/07, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
    > Torsten Kaiser wrote:
    > > No, I do not have CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP set,
    > > because I do not have CONFIG_PM_SLEEP set,
    > > because I do not want SUSPEND and/or HIBERNATION.

    > This is not the reason. SUSPEND is controlled with CONFIG_SUSPEND and
    > HIBERNATION is controlled with CONFIG_HIBERNATION.
    > But if you want S5 ACPI sleep state you might want to enable ACPI_SLEEP...


    What I meant with SUSPEND and/or HIBERNATION was CONFIG_SUSPEND /
    CONFIG_HIBERNATION.

    And the relations where from Kconfig:
    from drivers/acpi/Kconfig:
    config ACPI_SLEEP
    bool
    depends on PM_SLEEP
    default y

    -> no PM_SLEEP means no ACPI_SLEEP

    from kernel/power/Kconfig:
    config PM_SLEEP
    bool
    depends on SUSPEND || HIBERNATION
    default y

    -> No SUSPEND and/or HIBERNATION means no PM_SLEEP

    And if I select SUSPEND and/or HIBERNATION I will not only build this
    feature into the kernel, but also HOTPLUG_CPU and I want to avoid
    that.

    It's exactly as Linus said in his mail: Not everybody wants SUSPEND...

    I should have formulated that better in my mail, but that was what I
    wanted to say.


    Back to debugging this:
    http://marc.info/?l=linux-acpi&m=119052970904643&w=4
    fails to apply against 2.6.23-rc7-mm1, but moving that function by
    hand was not to difficult.
    (With only the second patch I got a link error...)

    http://marc.info/?l=linux-acpi&m=119073173625910&w=4
    applied, and a test showed that my system now powers off again.

    Torsten
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  6. Re: ACPI power off regression in 2.6.23-rc8 (NOT in rc7)

    Torsten Kaiser wrote:
    > On 9/25/07, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
    >> Torsten Kaiser wrote:
    >>> No, I do not have CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP set,
    >>> because I do not have CONFIG_PM_SLEEP set,
    >>> because I do not want SUSPEND and/or HIBERNATION.

    >> This is not the reason. SUSPEND is controlled with CONFIG_SUSPEND and
    >> HIBERNATION is controlled with CONFIG_HIBERNATION.
    >> But if you want S5 ACPI sleep state you might want to enable ACPI_SLEEP...

    >
    > What I meant with SUSPEND and/or HIBERNATION was CONFIG_SUSPEND /
    > CONFIG_HIBERNATION.
    >
    > And the relations where from Kconfig:
    > from drivers/acpi/Kconfig:
    > config ACPI_SLEEP
    > bool
    > depends on PM_SLEEP
    > default y
    >
    > -> no PM_SLEEP means no ACPI_SLEEP
    >
    > from kernel/power/Kconfig:
    > config PM_SLEEP
    > bool
    > depends on SUSPEND || HIBERNATION
    > default y
    >
    > -> No SUSPEND and/or HIBERNATION means no PM_SLEEP
    >
    > And if I select SUSPEND and/or HIBERNATION I will not only build this
    > feature into the kernel, but also HOTPLUG_CPU and I want to avoid
    > that.
    >
    > It's exactly as Linus said in his mail: Not everybody wants SUSPEND...
    >
    > I should have formulated that better in my mail, but that was what I
    > wanted to say.
    >
    >
    > Back to debugging this:
    > http://marc.info/?l=linux-acpi&m=119052970904643&w=4
    > fails to apply against 2.6.23-rc7-mm1, but moving that function by
    > hand was not to difficult.
    > (With only the second patch I got a link error...)
    >
    > http://marc.info/?l=linux-acpi&m=119073173625910&w=4
    > applied, and a test showed that my system now powers off again.
    >
    > Torsten

    Understood, patches are available, please test.

    Regards,
    Alex.
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  7. Re: ACPI power off regression in 2.6.23-rc8 (NOT in rc7)

    Torsten Kaiser wrote:
    > Back to debugging this:
    > http://marc.info/?l=linux-acpi&m=119052970904643&w=4
    > fails to apply against 2.6.23-rc7-mm1, but moving that function by
    > hand was not to difficult.
    > (With only the second patch I got a link error...)
    >
    > http://marc.info/?l=linux-acpi&m=119073173625910&w=4
    > applied, and a test showed that my system now powers off again.


    Good,
    thanks, Alex.
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  8. ACPI suspend/hibernate tests (was: ACPI power off regression in 2.6.23-rc8)

    On Tuesday 25 September 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
    > On Tuesday, 25 September 2007 17:40, Linus Torvalds wrote:
    > > Len - why are you guys moving stuff into CONFIG_PM_SLEEP? I know you
    > > seem to think that absolutely *everybody* should always support suspend
    > > and hibernation, but the fact is, not everybody does. And it's a
    > > totally separate thing for normal ACPI CPU runstate support that people
    > > have used to manage a *running* CPU (and shutting it down).

    >
    > This was a mistake and fixes have already been posted:
    >
    > http://marc.info/?l=linux-acpi&m=119052970904643&w=4
    > http://marc.info/?l=linux-acpi&m=119073173625910&w=4


    As this whole "separate suspend and hibernate" change seems to have been
    trickier than expected, I have done some additional testing using
    2.6.23-rc8 plus both patches referred to above.

    I compiled kernels (i386) for my laptop (Toshiba Satellite A40) with:
    A) PM + SUSPEND + HIBERNATION + ACPI
    B) PM + SUSPEND + ACPI
    C) PM + HIBERNATION + ACPI
    D) PM + ACPI
    E) PM + SUSPEND + HIBERNATION but _without_ ACPI
    F) without PM

    In all cases CONFIG_APM was not set; all compiled without errors.

    With all I have have booted, tried to suspend (close lid, which runs sleep
    script, which does 'echo mem >/sys/power/state'), tried to hibernate ('echo
    disk >/sys/power/state') and powered off (all from KDE sessions).

    RESULTS
    boot s2ram s2disk off
    A) OK OK OK OK
    B) OK OK N/A OK
    C) OK OK 1) OK OK
    D) OK 2) OK 1) N/A OK
    E) OK 3) N/A 4) ??? 5) Only halted 6)
    F) OK N/A N/A Only halted 6)

    Comments:
    1) sleep script ran, but laptop stayed on
    2) dmesg lists S0,S5 supported
    /proc/acpi/{sleep,wakeup} do not exist (is that correct?)
    3) /proc/acpi/{sleep,wakeup} do not exist; /sys/power/state only has 'mem'
    so SUSPEND seems missing even though compiled in
    4) sleep script did not even run (as expected)
    5) System did suspend, but power stayed on with on console:
    Shutdown: hda \ Power down. \ Shutdown: hda \ hda: lost interrupt (2x)
    \ psmouse.c: Failed to deactivate mouse on isa0060/serio1
    System powered off manually and resumed correctly after that
    6) System halted correctly, but did not power off automatically

    The results for E and F are possibly correct as basically the config
    (without ACPI) was broken for this laptop. In fact, I was somewhat
    surprised how well it behaved without ACPI.

    I suspect that whether a system powers off without ACPI or not can depend on
    the system?

    I have dmesg after boot and some other info available for all kernels if
    anybody is interested. If any additional tests are wanted, please ask.

    Cheers,
    FJP
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  9. Re: ACPI suspend/hibernate tests (was: ACPI power off regression in 2.6.23-rc8)

    On Tuesday, 25 September 2007 23:44, Frans Pop wrote:
    > On Tuesday 25 September 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
    > > On Tuesday, 25 September 2007 17:40, Linus Torvalds wrote:
    > > > Len - why are you guys moving stuff into CONFIG_PM_SLEEP? I know you
    > > > seem to think that absolutely *everybody* should always support suspend
    > > > and hibernation, but the fact is, not everybody does. And it's a
    > > > totally separate thing for normal ACPI CPU runstate support that people
    > > > have used to manage a *running* CPU (and shutting it down).

    > >
    > > This was a mistake and fixes have already been posted:
    > >
    > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-acpi&m=119052970904643&w=4
    > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-acpi&m=119073173625910&w=4

    >
    > As this whole "separate suspend and hibernate" change seems to have been
    > trickier than expected, I have done some additional testing using
    > 2.6.23-rc8 plus both patches referred to above.
    >
    > I compiled kernels (i386) for my laptop (Toshiba Satellite A40) with:
    > A) PM + SUSPEND + HIBERNATION + ACPI
    > B) PM + SUSPEND + ACPI
    > C) PM + HIBERNATION + ACPI
    > D) PM + ACPI
    > E) PM + SUSPEND + HIBERNATION but _without_ ACPI
    > F) without PM


    Thanks a lot for testing this!

    > In all cases CONFIG_APM was not set; all compiled without errors.
    >
    > With all I have have booted, tried to suspend (close lid, which runs sleep
    > script, which does 'echo mem >/sys/power/state'), tried to hibernate ('echo
    > disk >/sys/power/state') and powered off (all from KDE sessions).
    >
    > RESULTS
    > boot s2ram s2disk off
    > A) OK OK OK OK
    > B) OK OK N/A OK
    > C) OK OK 1) OK OK
    > D) OK 2) OK 1) N/A OK
    > E) OK 3) N/A 4) ??? 5) Only halted 6)
    > F) OK N/A N/A Only halted 6)
    >
    > Comments:
    > 1) sleep script ran, but laptop stayed on
    > 2) dmesg lists S0,S5 supported
    > /proc/acpi/{sleep,wakeup} do not exist (is that correct?)
    > 3) /proc/acpi/{sleep,wakeup} do not exist; /sys/power/state only has 'mem'


    Hm, this should be 'disk' ...

    > so SUSPEND seems missing even though compiled in


    .... but it so follows from this comment. Can you clarify, please?

    > 4) sleep script did not even run (as expected)
    > 5) System did suspend, but power stayed on with on console:
    > Shutdown: hda \ Power down. \ Shutdown: hda \ hda: lost interrupt (2x)
    > \ psmouse.c: Failed to deactivate mouse on isa0060/serio1
    > System powered off manually and resumed correctly after that
    > 6) System halted correctly, but did not power off automatically
    >
    > The results for E and F are possibly correct as basically the config
    > (without ACPI) was broken for this laptop. In fact, I was somewhat
    > surprised how well it behaved without ACPI.
    >
    > I suspect that whether a system powers off without ACPI or not can depend on
    > the system?
    >
    > I have dmesg after boot and some other info available for all kernels if
    > anybody is interested. If any additional tests are wanted, please ask.


    I think that your results reflect the code pretty well, ie. no big surprises.

    On ACPI machines suspend doesn't actually work without ACPI and that's why
    'mem' is missing from kernel/power/state with E). Hibernation theoretically
    works without ACPI, but the box cannot be powered off due to the lack of
    support for that.

    For the same reason, the system doesn't power off with E), F).

    The errors from device drivers in the last phase of hibernation with E) may be
    related to some confusion cause by the lack of ACPI methods expected to be
    present.

    Greetings,
    Rafael
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  10. Re: ACPI suspend/hibernate tests (was: ACPI power off regression in 2.6.23-rc8)

    On Wednesday 26 September 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
    > > I compiled kernels (i386) for my laptop (Toshiba Satellite A40) with:
    > > A) PM + SUSPEND + HIBERNATION + ACPI
    > > B) PM + SUSPEND + ACPI
    > > C) PM + HIBERNATION + ACPI
    > > D) PM + ACPI
    > > E) PM + SUSPEND + HIBERNATION but _without_ ACPI
    > > F) without PM

    >
    > Thanks a lot for testing this!


    You're welcome. Until 2.6.20 or .21 s2ram never worked for me and even then
    sound did not work after resume. Now it seems to be supported perfectly, so
    my thanks to all of you!
    Pity this laptop is slowly nearing end of life (3.5 years old, though still
    performing fine).

    > > RESULTS
    > > boot s2ram s2disk off
    > > A) OK OK OK OK
    > > B) OK OK N/A OK
    > > C) OK OK 1) OK OK
    > > D) OK 2) OK 1) N/A OK
    > > E) OK 3) N/A 4) ??? 5) Only halted 6)
    > > F) OK N/A N/A Only halted 6)
    > >
    > > Comments:
    > > 1) sleep script ran, but laptop stayed on
    > > 2) dmesg lists S0,S5 supported
    > > /proc/acpi/{sleep,wakeup} do not exist (is that correct?)
    > > 3) /proc/acpi/{sleep,wakeup} do not exist; /sys/power/state only has
    > > 'mem'

    >
    > Hm, this should be 'disk' ...
    >
    > > so SUSPEND seems missing even though compiled in

    >
    > ... but it so follows from this comment. Can you clarify, please?


    Yes, my mistake. For E) /sys/power/state only has "disk", not "mem".

    > I think that your results reflect the code pretty well, ie. no big
    > surprises.


    Great. That was what I was thinking. Thanks for confirming.
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  11. Re: ACPI power off regression in 2.6.23-rc8 (NOT in rc7)

    On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 17:05:00 +0200
    Damien Wyart wrote:

    > > Will test this evening the patch you pointed in your next message.

    >
    > Ok, with both patches (including the very latest one from Alexey ---
    > tried the "stylistically correct" one), machine halts fine again.
    > Thanks to all for having looked at this!


    Same here, applying the two patches in this thread fixed the problem
    for me, on my Intel 965P based system. It now does the acpi power off
    correctly once again, and I have noticed no other problems with
    2.6.23-rc8.

    "move acpi_sleep_prepare outside of CONFIG_SUSPEND" and the last
    "ACPI: suspend: fix ACPI_SLEEP states"

    Thanks Alexey and Rafael.

    Mike Houston
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  12. Re: ACPI power off regression in 2.6.23-rc8 (NOT in rc7)

    Bah, its too damn stable. Break it and do it again.

    >From 2.6.20.3 :


    Boot time cut in half.
    My PC no longer 'wakes up' angrily. My wife does that, I'm going to
    start sleeping with the P4, its more agreeable now.

    P4 HT with generic Intel chipset.

    What fun is this when nothing breaks?

    Thank you all

    On Tue, 2007-09-25 at 08:40 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
    >
    > On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 08:51:09 +0200 Damien Wyart wrote:
    > >
    > > Hello,
    > >
    > > After testing rc8, I noticed that I couldn't power off the computer
    > > directly, it only got halted and I had to press the power button
    > > manually. Just before displaying "System halted", the following message
    > > is displayed:
    > >
    > > ACPI : PCI interrupt for device 0000:02:08.0 disabled
    > >
    > > I had to first revert 5a50fe709d527f31169263e36601dd83446d5744 then
    > > f216cc3748a3a22c2b99390fddcdafa0583791a2 (handling of Sx states) to
    > > recover previous behaviour.

    >
    > Hmm. Those things *do* seem to be suspicious.
    >
    > For example, those commits seem to move code that used to be inside
    > CONFIG_PM (which pretty much *everybody* has) to be inside
    > CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP (which is a totally different thing, and depends on
    > whether the user asked for suspend support or not!
    >
    > Damien - does it work if you ask for SUSPEND or HIBERNATION support?
    >
    > Len - why are you guys moving stuff into CONFIG_PM_SLEEP? I know you seem
    > to think that absolutely *everybody* should always support suspend and
    > hibernation, but the fact is, not everybody does. And it's a totally
    > separate thing for normal ACPI CPU runstate support that people have used
    > to manage a *running* CPU (and shutting it down).
    >
    > Linus
    > -
    > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/


    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2