On Friday, June 11, 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Friday, June 11, 2010, Maxim Levitsky wrote: > > On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 21:43 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Friday, June 11, 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > On Friday, June 11, 2010, Maxim Levitsky wrote: > > > > > Just bisected it. > > > > > > > > > > I also tried linux-acpi-next/test, and no change. > > > > > > > > > > The sympthoms are that EC does't sent any GPEs, and therefore battery > > > > > insert/removal events don't show up. > > > > > > > > > > It can be see by doing 'grep . /sys/firmware/acpi/interrupts/*' > > > > > With regression the line is shown like this: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /sys/firmware/acpi/interrupts/gpe1C: 1 enabled > > > > > > > > > > Without regression it is > > > > > > > > > > /sys/firmware/acpi/interrupts/gpe1C: 22889 enabled > > > > > > > > > > and steadily increasing. > > > > > > > > > > After suspend/resume, regression disappears. > > > > > > > > Hmm. > > > > > > > > Can you please apply the following patches: > > > > > > > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/104903/ > > > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/104912/ > > > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/104909/ > > > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/104911/ > > > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/104910/ > > > > > > > > on top of current -git and see if the problem is still there? > > > > > > Also, regardless of whether or not this helps, please try to revert only the > > > changes made by the "guilty" commit in drivers/acpi/acpica/evxface.c and see > > > if that helps (this revert will conflict with the patches above, so you'll need > > > to unapply them before). > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Rafael > > > -- > > > 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 > > > > Yes, reverting changes in 'drivers/acpi/acpica/evxface.c' do restore > > correct behavior. > > Good. I think we'll need to revert them for .35, then. > > I'll prepare a patch and send it to Len. Can you check if the patch below fixes the issue? Rafael --- From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> Subject: ACPI / ACPICA: Do not attempt to disable GPE when installing handler Commit 0f849d2cc6863c7874889ea60a871fb71399dd3f (ACPICA: Minimize the differences between linux GPE code and ACPICA code base) introduced a change attempting to disable a GPE before installing a handler for it in acpi_install_gpe_handler() which was incorrect. First, the GPE disabled by it is never enabled again (except during resume) which leads to battery insert/remove events not being reported on the Maxim Levitsky's machine. Second, the disabled GPE is still reported as enabled by the sysfs interface that only checks its enable register's enable_for_run mask. Revert this change for now, because it causes more damage to happen than the bug it was supposed to fix. Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> Reported-by: Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@xxxxxxxxx> --- drivers/acpi/acpica/evxface.c | 20 +++++++++----------- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) Index: linux-2.6/drivers/acpi/acpica/evxface.c =================================================================== --- linux-2.6.orig/drivers/acpi/acpica/evxface.c +++ linux-2.6/drivers/acpi/acpica/evxface.c @@ -719,13 +720,6 @@ acpi_install_gpe_handler(acpi_handle gpe handler->context = context; handler->method_node = gpe_event_info->dispatch.method_node; - /* Disable the GPE before installing the handler */ - - status = acpi_ev_disable_gpe(gpe_event_info); - if (ACPI_FAILURE (status)) { - goto unlock_and_exit; - } - /* Install the handler */ flags = acpi_os_acquire_lock(acpi_gbl_gpe_lock); _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
