Alan Jenkins wrote: > 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. > Drama over, I've now tested it. No error messages, and the printk timings show that it has stopped hanging for half a second. 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
