Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Saturday, 11 of October 2008, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote: > >> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> >>>> No, we discussed this before -- we are outside of the transaction, thus >>>> no GPE >>>> activity could interfere with ec_check_ibf0. >>>> >>> Ok, this is in the process context and we don't really expect to get an >>> interrupt at this point, but what happens if the EC generates an event that's >>> not related to any transiaction. Is that guaranteed to never happen? >>> >> Interrupt handler in this case can't cause a change to status register, thus our >> read of it will not be affected by interrupt. >> > > Ok, thanks. > > Alan, does the patch work for you? > > Rafael > Yes. Two reboot cycles, three suspend/resume cycles each, and no error message. I hope we have a better fix in mind though :-P. The patch doesn't solve the unnecessary 500ms delay when this thing happens. Thanks Alan -- 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
