Re: [RFC][PATCH -mm 1/2] swsusp: Remove platform callbacks from restore code

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

 



On 5/9/07, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 May 2007 19:30, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
> Yes, something like that should do...
> I'd prefer not to call ACPI functions from outside of drivers/acpi,
> but this could be cleaned later.

Actually, I was thinking of adding two operations to hibernation_ops() (now,
that we have it :-)).

Would you mind if I made this change on top of 2/2, as a third patch in the
series?  That would be easier.
Go ahead :)


> On 5/9/07, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 9 May 2007 15:34, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
> > > we needed to call pm_prepare() on boot kernel only to disable GPEs to
> > > resolve 7887. It will also blink the LEDs during the resume image
> > > load, but it's possible to live without it.
> > > If you drop call to pm_prepare(), we still need to disable GPEs, so
> > > they will not fire during image switch. So if we disable GPE in
> > > suspend() method of EC it will work as soon as there are no other so
> > > much active GPEs at boot time...
> >
> > Okay, I just wanted to clarify.
> >
> > In that case, I think, we should add a special callback to disable the GPEs
> > in the restore code path (before we restore the image).
> >
> > I also think that it would be sufficient if this callback only executed the
> > following loop:
> >
> >
> >         status = acpi_hw_disable_all_gpes();
> >         if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
> >                 return_ACPI_STATUS(status);
> >         }
> >
> > and it should be called right before disable_nonboot_cpus().
> >
> > Is that correct?
> >
> > Now, assumig that it's correct, we'll need a complementary callback to be
> > executed in the restore error code paths, right after enable_nonboot_cpus(),
> > to enable the GPEs if there's an error during the restore.  I think it might
> > contain the following code:
> >
> >         status = acpi_hw_enable_all_runtime_gpes();
> >         if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
> >                 return_ACPI_STATUS(status);
> >         }
> >
> >
> > Greetings,
> > Rafael
> >
> >
> > > On 5/9/07, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, 9 May 2007 13:59, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
> > > > > This patch will disable EC GPE, which seems to be major problem.
> > > >
> > > > Could you please explain to me why you think so?
> > > >
> > > > Greetings,
> > > > Rafael
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > If you don't have the time to read,
> > you don't have the time or the tools to write.
> >                 - Stephen King
> >
> >
>
>

--
If you don't have the time to read,
you don't have the time or the tools to write.
                - Stephen King

_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm

[Index of Archives]     [Linux ACPI]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [CPU Freq]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux