On Tuesday, 1 of April 2008, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! Hi, > > > > > > For the reasons outlined above, the change of the suspend ordering > > > > > > should be reverted, which is done by the patch below. > > > > > > > > > > But this will break those few nvidia-based systems, no? > > > > > > > > > > this may have been a good idea in -rc1 days, but we are in -rc7 > > > > > now... and the patch is slightly big. > > > > > > > > It's quite obvious, though. > > > > > > Yes, but breaking systems between -rc7 and final is _very_ unnice. > > > > Breaking systems between 2.6.24 and 2.6.25 is even worse, which is why > > I've posted this patch. > > > > IOW, we tried to fix systems that were broken with 2.6.24, but it didn't work, > > because our "fix" broke systems that were OK with 2.6.24. Solution: revert > > the "fix" and go back to the design board. That's all we can do so late in > > the release cycle, IMO. > > Well, I agree that regression from 2.6.24 is worse, but it is > _slightly_ worse... -rcs are really expected to improve... > > ...plus it no longer looks like macbook regression is caused by _PTS > ordering? > > > > > I think we _can_ do something about the failing NVidia systems in the 2.6.26 > > > > time frame, but that will require some more consideration. > > > > > > We could simply blacklist them, no? > > > > Yes, but for this purpose we'll have to redesign the core so that everything > > (including debugging and the error paths) works if _PTS is executed before > > suspending devices. _That_, however, is not a 2.6.25 thing. > > So we have solution that fixes 2.6.24 systems, makes system that > worked in 2.6.25-rc5 work with command line option, but gets error > handling wrong. > > I guess we could use that? IMO we should not use that, because it's broken. That's why I posted the patch. Thanks, Rafael -- 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
