From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: ACPI failures on non-Intel hardware Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 16:59:40 +0000 Message-ID: <1102870780.5984.34.camel@tyrosine> References: <1102805280.5984.30.camel@tyrosine> <20041212164141.GC6286@elf.ucw.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20041212164141.GC6286-I/5MKhXcvmPrBKCeMvbIDA@public.gmane.org> Sender: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Errors-To: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: To: Pavel Machek Cc: acpi-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 2004-12-12 at 17:41 +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > The fact that I've only seen this on systems that didn't have Intel > > motherboard chipsets makes me wonder whether there's something going > > wrong during the suspend code that happens to work by chance on Intel > > (and a few other) chipsets, or alternatively whether these chipsets > > manage to fall outside the specs slightly. Any ideas? > > See some Acer machine if you want to see similar failure on Intel > system... I thought that case crashed /inside/ the wakeup code, rather than rebooting before any of it was run? -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59-1xO5oi07KQx4cg9Nei1l7Q@public.gmane.org ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/