Hi!
> > There was discussion about this issue several months ago (intel's ml), looks
> > people forgot to take action after the discussion. The spec owner said 64bit
> > vector is used in protected mode. That is if OS sets it, wakeup code is
> > called in protected mode by BIOS. So the 64-bit vector shouldn't be used.
>
> Well, I read this part of the spec (2.0c, 3.0b) more carefully and it matches
> what you're saying. Moreover, my understanding of it is that we should
> actually _clear_ the 64-bit vector on systems that support it, because
> otherwise the BIOS is supposed to use it and call the wake-up code in protected
> mode.
>
> The appended patch is based on this observation.
Hmm, nice.
64-bit waking is the one that is 'recommended' to use, right? Could we
get some strange machines (kohjisha?) to jump to the waking vector by
using 64-bit one?
Do windows use 32-bit or 64-bit vector?
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>
>
> ACPI suspend: Always use the 32-bit waking vector
>
> According to the ACPI specification 2.0c and later, the 64-bit waking vector
> should be cleared and the 32-bit waking vector should be used, unless we want
> the wake-up code to be called by the BIOS in Protected Mode. Moreover, some
> systems (for example HP dv5-1004nr) are known to fail to resume if the 64-bit
> waking vector is used. Therefore, modify the code to clear the 64-bit waking
> vector, for FACS version 1 or greater, and set the 32-bit one before suspend.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>
ACK.
> ---
> drivers/acpi/hardware/hwsleep.c | 37 +++++++++++--------------------------
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-2.6/drivers/acpi/hardware/hwsleep.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/drivers/acpi/hardware/hwsleep.c
> +++ linux-2.6/drivers/acpi/hardware/hwsleep.c
> @@ -78,19 +78,17 @@ acpi_set_firmware_waking_vector(acpi_phy
> return_ACPI_STATUS(status);
> }
>
> - /* Set the vector */
> + /*
> + * According to the ACPI specification 2.0c and later, the 64-bit
> + * waking vector should be cleared and the 32-bit waking vector should
> + * be used, unless we want the wake-up code to be called by the BIOS in
> + * Protected Mode. Some systems (for example HP dv5-1004nr) are known
> + * to fail to resume if the 64-bit vector is used.
> + */
> + if (facs->version >= 1)
> + facs->xfirmware_waking_vector = 0;
>
> - if ((facs->length < 32) || (!(facs->xfirmware_waking_vector))) {
> - /*
> - * ACPI 1.0 FACS or short table or optional X_ field is zero
> - */
> - facs->firmware_waking_vector = (u32) physical_address;
> - } else {
> - /*
> - * ACPI 2.0 FACS with valid X_ field
> - */
> - facs->xfirmware_waking_vector = physical_address;
> - }
> + facs->firmware_waking_vector = (u32)physical_address;
>
> return_ACPI_STATUS(AE_OK);
> }
> @@ -134,20 +132,7 @@ acpi_get_firmware_waking_vector(acpi_phy
> }
>
> /* Get the vector */
> -
> - if ((facs->length < 32) || (!(facs->xfirmware_waking_vector))) {
> - /*
> - * ACPI 1.0 FACS or short table or optional X_ field is zero
> - */
> - *physical_address =
> - (acpi_physical_address) facs->firmware_waking_vector;
> - } else {
> - /*
> - * ACPI 2.0 FACS with valid X_ field
> - */
> - *physical_address =
> - (acpi_physical_address) facs->xfirmware_waking_vector;
> - }
> + *physical_address = (acpi_physical_address)facs->firmware_waking_vector;
>
> return_ACPI_STATUS(AE_OK);
> }
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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
