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_HIBERNATION)", >>> 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. > > 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... Regards, Alex. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
