Re: ACPI suspend: test 64-bit waking vector (was Re: [PATCH] ACPI suspend: Always use the 32-bit waking vector)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wednesday, 17 of September 2008, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Wed 2008-09-17 07:45:18, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, 15 of September 2008, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > > 
> > > ACPI specificiation tells us that x_firmware_waking_vector is
> > > preffered, and maybe it works better than firmware_waking_vector on
> > > some machines.
> > > 
> > > Unfortunately, it does not seem to work on thinkpad x60... but I am
> > > not sure if I'm not doing something wrong.
> > > 
> > > Testing/ideas would be welcome.
> > 
> > Well, the spec says that if x_firmware_waking_vector is non-zero, the BIOS is
> > supposed to call your wake-up code in Protected Mode ...
> 
> That's why I'm passing physical address of 32-bit code...

Well, that should work in theory.  The BIOS is supposed to set up 4 GB of flat
memory starting from zero before jumping to the wake-up code (at least as far
as I understand the spec).

However, is your FACS version equal to 1?

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

[Index of Archives]     [Linux IBM ACPI]     [Linux Power Management]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux Laptop]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Resources]

  Powered by Linux