On Wednesday 10 February 2010, Gary Hade wrote: > On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 07:00:54PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Wednesday 10 February 2010, Gary Hade wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 02:12:29AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > On Wednesday 10 February 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > On Wednesday 10 February 2010, Gary Hade wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 09, 2010 at 12:58:39PM -0800, Gary Hade wrote: > > > > > ... > > > > > > > OK. I already confirmed that the problem reproduces with your > > > > > > > patches applied. I am now in the process of trying vanilla > > > > > > > 2.6.33-rc7. If hot-add works with 2.6.33-rc7 I will give > > > > > > > your patch a try. > > > > > > > > > > > > The hot-add worked fine with an unpatched 2.6.33-rc7. > > > > > > > > > > Good. > > > > > > > > > > > The new patch when added to the 2.6.33-rc7 tree that > > > > > > included the original patchset unfortunately did not > > > > > > correct the problem. > > > > > > > > > > Bad. > > > > > > > > > > Well, fortunately I have another one, but I haven't tested it myself yet except > > > > > for checking that it builds. Hopefully it won't break things more. > > > > > > > > > > The patch below applies on top of 2.6.33-rc7 with my PCI runtime PM patchset > > > > > applied. Please test it and let me know the results. > > > > > > > > Sorry, I sent a wrong version of the patch by mistake, it doesn't even build. > > > > The correct one is appended. > > > > > > No problem. I received this message before doing anything with > > > the previous one. > > > > > > Sorry, both hot-add and hot-remove behaviors appear unchanged > > > with this patch. > > > > Hmm, that's kind of strange. I'm getting suspicious. > > > > > I would like to dig into the code and help with the debugging > > > but I am swamped with other things right now. However, feel > > > free to continue using me for testing if you have other ideas > > > you want me to try. > > > > Thanks, of course I have some ideas. :-) > > > > First, please try to test 2.6.33-rc7 with patches [1/9] - [7/9] applied > > (ie. without the $subject patch and [9/9]). Let's make sure we're debugging > > the right patch. > > It does look like both the hot-add and hot-remove issues were > introduced by something in 1/9 through 7/9. I started with a > clean 2.6.33-rc7 tree and applied only 1/9 through 7/9. I still > see that lingering blinking amber LED with hot-remove and no > response from the driver during hot-add. > > Now I suppose you want me to start reverting 1/9 through 7/9 > in reverse order to find the culprit. :) Actually, I think [6/9] is the offending one, so please try with [1/9] - [5/9] applied and if that works, please apply [6/9] and retest to confirm it's the culprit. Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
