Re: Regression from 2.6.26: Hibernation (possibly suspend) broken on Toshiba R500 (bisected)

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>]

On Wednesday, 3 of December 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, 3 of December 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > 
> > On Tue, 2 Dec 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > 
> > > * dmesg output including one hibernation-resume cycle from 2.6.28-rc7 with the
> > >   debug patch (appended for completness):
> > > 
> > >   http://www.sisk.pl/kernel/debug/mainline/2.6.28-rc7/dmesg-rc7-patched-prep.log
> > > 
> > > * dmesg output including one hibernation-resume cycle from 2.6.28-rc7 without
> > >   the debug patch:
> > > 
> > >   http://www.sisk.pl/kernel/debug/mainline/2.6.28-rc7/dmesg-rc7-nopatch-prep.log
> > 
> > As with Frans, the debug patch seems to make no difference what-so-ever. 
> > Yes, the cardbus regions get allocated differently, but they're fine in 
> > either case, and arguably (exactly as with Frans) the debug patch actually 
> > makes things uglier by actively getting the alignment wrong, and skipping 
> > cardbus setup until later.
> 
> Hm, what about (from the copy of /proc/iomem without the patch at
> http://www.sisk.pl/kernel/debug/mainline/2.6.28-rc7/rc7-nopatch/iomem):
> 
> 88000000-8bffffff : PCI Bus 0000:03
>   88000000-8bffffff : PCI CardBus 0000:04
> 8c000000-91ffffff : PCI Bus 0000:03
>   8c000000-8fffffff : PCI CardBus 0000:04
> 
> (1) Why two ranges are allocated for 0000:03 without the patch while there is
>     only one range with the patch:
> 
> 88000000-880fffff : PCI Bus 0000:03
> 
>     (copy of the file at
>     http://www.sisk.pl/kernel/debug/mainline/2.6.28-rc7/rc7-patched/iomem)?
>     That seems to look like a difference to me.

OK, I see why this happens.

> (2) Why are they so large without the patch while with the patch they are much
>     smaller (O(2^28) vs O(2^21) if I'm not mistaken)?

I don't see why this should happen, though.  Even if the prefetch window is
discarded, the MEM window seems to be much wider without the patch.

> (3) Why are they overlapping with the ranges for CardBus 0000:04, although
>     without the patch they aren't?  Is that actually correct at all?

OK, I see why this happens too.

Sorry for the noise,
Rafael