Re: [patch]: ACPI: Add the Pansonic CF51 box to the dmi check table

[yakui_zhao <yakui.zhao@intel.com>]

On Thu, 2009-03-19 at 09:21 +0800, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 09:16:07AM +0800, yakui_zhao wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-03-18 at 21:41 +0800, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > Do we have any idea what's going on here, yet?
> > >  Several of the machines 
> > > on this blacklist are modern, so it's not a workaround for ancient 
> > > hardware.
> > Now we have no idea how the behaviour is changed with the boot option.
> > In fact the boot option is useful for all the boxes that can't be
> > resumed unless it is added. 
> > 
> > Although the machine is modern, the ACPI 1.0 is followed on this box.
> > Without the boot option of "acpi_sleep=old_ordering", it can't be
> > resumed from S3 correctly. But after adding the boot option, the box can
> > be resumed. 
> 
> Yes. So how do we tell which ordering a machine needs without having a 
> blacklist? Windows doesn't. 

If there exists the different behaviour w/o the boot option, maybe it
should be added to the blacklist. 

Maybe there is no such blacklist on windows.

I verify this problem on windows by using KVM and find that the _PTS
object is called after device suspend in course of hibernate.(No S3 is
supported on KVM). In theory the _PTS is also called after device
suspend in course of suspend.
But it is strange that suspend/resume can work well on windows XP. 
Maybe more registers are saved/restored in course of suspend. But we
can't know what should be saved/restored.
> 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html