Alexis Starikovskiy wrote: > Alan Jenkins wrote: >> 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. > > Something like this? > > Regards, > Alex. You sent it as an attachment again :-). That should work, odd as it looks. We don't need to worry about the GPE workaround because that's only active _inside_ the transaction. I don't know what Zhao thinks is missing. Sorry I can't test right now. I tried to install 3D support on my laptop for showing-off purposes, and somehow broke X. 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
