On Wednesday 02 June 2010, Maxim Levitsky wrote: > On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 00:40 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Tuesday 01 June 2010, Maxim Levitsky wrote: > > > On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 23:31 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > On Tuesday 01 June 2010, Maxim Levitsky wrote: > > > > > Saving platform non-volatile state may be required for suspend to RAM as > > > > > well as hibernation. Move it to more generic code. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Matthew Garrett <mjg@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Matthew Garrett <maximlevitsky@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > You made a mistake here. > > > > > > > > Also, why are you resending the Matthews patches? I think Len has seen them > > > > already. > > > Yea, a copypaste. > > > > > > (I was told that if one submits modified patch, it adds his > > > Signed-off-by.) > > > > > > I rebased these on top of > > > ACPI / EC / PM: Fix race between EC transactions and system suspend' > > > > > > To be honest, I just want to get some feedback on this. > > > This was major issue that kept me from using otherwise prefect suspend > > > to ram. > > > > I think this is a change we should try, but there is a chance it will break > > some systems. > I doubt that. BIOSes are tested against windows, and since it has this > behavior, all systems this patch could break wouldn't work in windows > ether. Still, some systems were broken by the saving-restoring NVS over hibernation. > I was doing all kinds of attempts to fix this bug, and finally I found > the cause for it. I know and I'm not objecting to the patches. I'm only saying we should be careful with them. Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
