From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexey Starikovskiy Subject: Re: ACPI power off regression in 2.6.23-rc8 (NOT in rc7) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 18:19:36 +0400 Message-ID: <46F918F8.1080808@suse.de> References: <20070925065109.GA3080@localhost.localdomain> <200709251525.11752.rjw@sisk.pl> <46F909E0.4020000@suse.de> <200709251618.06064.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from charybdis-ext.suse.de ([195.135.221.2]:39042 "EHLO emea5-mh.id5.novell.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751350AbXIYOTl (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Sep 2007 10:19:41 -0400 In-Reply-To: <200709251618.06064.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Alexey Starikovskiy , Damien Wyart , Torsten Kaiser , Andrew Morton , LKML , Len Brown , Frans Pop , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday, 25 September 2007 15:15, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote: >> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> On Tuesday, 25 September 2007 14:53, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote: >>>> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, 25 September 2007 14:05, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote: >>>>>> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>>>>>> On Tuesday, 25 September 2007 13:45, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 25 September 2007 11:58, Damien Wyart wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> No, I do not have CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP set, >>>>>>>>>>> because I do not have CONFIG_PM_SLEEP set, >>>>>>>>>>> because I do not want SUSPEND and/or HIBERNATION. >>>>>>>>>> Same answer from my side: I do not have CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP for the same >>>>>>>>>> reason (and this worked fine without them in rc7). I do not think >>>>>>>>>> these settings should have changed between rc7 and rc8. >>>>>>>> Well, we haven't changed much. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Also, another test I just did: on another computer, rc8 is fine >>>>>>>>> regarding ACPI power off, even if CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP is not set. I can >>>>>>>>> provide config if needed. >>>>>>>> On the box that fails to power off, can you please test -rc8 with these two >>>>>>>> commits reverted: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> commit 5a50fe709d527f31169263e36601dd83446d5744 >>>>>>>> ACPI: suspend: consolidate handling of Sx states addendum >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> commit f216cc3748a3a22c2b99390fddcdafa0583791a2 >>>>>>>> ACPI: suspend: consolidate handling of Sx states. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> and see if it works? >>>>>>> If it does, please test the patch from this message >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=119052978117735&w=4 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> on top of vanilla 2.6.23-rc8. >>>>>> You will need one more patch on top of just mentioned one. >>>>> Hm, why did you put acpi_target_sleep_state under CONFIG_SUSPEND? >>>>> >>>>> CONFIG_HIBERNATION needs acpi_target_sleep_state too. >>>> Agree, attaching updated patch. >>> Well, please use "ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP" instead of >>> "if defined(CONFIG_SUSPEND)||defined(CONFIG_HIBERNATION)", >>> as you did with the second block. >> I was thinking about that, but it seem to be less clear... >> We need this variable only for suspend or hibernation, nothing else. >> with pm_sleep it is not visible at all. >> >> Thoughts? > > Well, PM_SLEEP is defined as (SUSPEND || HIBERNATION), please have a look > at kernel/power/Kconfig, and it was introduced exactly for the conditions like > this. I've seen this then I wrote the patch :) See my point, it is not clear, that PM_SLEEP is equivalent to SUSPEND || HIBERNATION, one needs to grep Kconfig files to find that -- it means that code becomes less readable, and I would like to avoid that. > > IOW, if we want something to be used for anything else than suspend or > hibernation, it shouldn't be defined under PM_SLEEP. Agree, but we should distinguish there it is better to use PM_SLEEP, and there it is better to use (SUSPEND || HIBERNATION) just to be more expressive... Regards, Alex.