From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: yakui_zhao Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI: suspend: don't let device _PS3 failure prevent suspend Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 08:48:25 +0800 Message-ID: <1242089305.3773.198.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <4A073D92.5060904@gmx.net> <1242009782.3773.139.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200905111721.10166.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:37220 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755501AbZELAqS (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 May 2009 20:46:18 -0400 In-Reply-To: <200905111721.10166.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Witold Szczeponik , Henrique de Moraes Holschuh , Len Brown , Bjorn Helgaas , "cedric@belbone.be" , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" On Mon, 2009-05-11 at 23:21 +0800, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Monday 11 May 2009, yakui_zhao wrote: > > On Mon, 2009-05-11 at 04:48 +0800, Witold Szczeponik wrote: > > > Henrique de Moraes Holschuh schrieb: > > > > > > > On Fri, 08 May 2009, Len Brown wrote: > > > >> Or perhaps we should just shrug off the _PS3 failure > > > >> and carry on with _DIS like we used to -- which is > > > >> what this patch does. > > > > > > > > Maybe "printk and carry on" would be better? > > > > > > > > > > And there is very similar code just a few lines above: where we turn on > > > the device by setting it to D0. There, too, we may want to skip the > > > check whether or not the transition was successful or not. > > What you said is right. > > It sounds reasonable that we skip the power state check while transiting > > it to D0 state. > > > > In fact the power state check can be skipped by adding the boot option > > of "acpi.power_nocheck=1". > > Can we avoid adding the boot option? I'd very much prefer not to add boot > options if not really necessary. One is to add it into the DMI power check table so that the default value of power_nocheck is 1. Another is that the default value of power_nocheck is changed to 1 instead of 0. In such case the power state check will be skipped in course of power transition. Is this OK? > > Rafael