On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 23:39:59 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote (http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-acpi/msg22661.html): > In fact, we need to do this entire thing differently. > > The basic problem is that cpufreq_suspend() is a sysdev thing, so it will > always be called with iterrupts off and *only* for CPU0. So, it looks like > the majority of things we do there is just unnecessary (at least). What's the status? This bug is driving me nuts. Thanks, Michael Witten -- 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
