From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Karol Kozimor Subject: [PM][ACPI] /proc/acpi/alarm halfway working Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 01:46:30 +0200 Sender: linux-kernel-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org Message-ID: <20030927234630.GA32525@hell.org.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline To: Patrick Mochel Cc: acpi-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Hi, I've just tested 2.6.0-test5-mm4, it seems that the /proc/acpi/alarm has ceased to deadlock my laptop and actually started to work as expected. The only drawback is: #v+ irq 9: nobody cared! Call Trace: [] __report_bad_irq+0x2a/0x8b [] note_interrupt+0x6f/0x9f [] do_IRQ+0xe2/0xe4 [] common_interrupt+0x18/0x20 [] sys_shmat+0x1f6/0x2b6 [] do_softirq+0x40/0x97 [] do_IRQ+0xc9/0xe4 [] common_interrupt+0x18/0x20 [] acpi_os_write_port+0x33/0x35 [] acpi_hw_low_level_write+0x118/0x122 [] acpi_ut_trace+0x28/0x2c [] acpi_hw_register_write+0xca/0x16b [] acpi_set_register+0x1d0/0x2aa [] acpi_system_write_alarm+0x497/0x520 [] vfs_write+0xbc/0x127 [] sys_write+0x42/0x63 [] syscall_call+0x7/0xb handlers: [] (acpi_irq+0x0/0x16) Disabling IRQ #9 #v- This happens upon the first echo > proc/acpi/alarm. The echo, however, sets the time right, and the system is actually woken up successfully (S1, S3, S4 were tested). Subsequent echos work, but do not generate the above messages. Since IRQ 9 is what ACPI resides on, almost no new events are reported (except those explicitely trigerred by _WAK). The chipset is i845M; tell me if full dmesg is needed. Best regards, -- Karol 'sziwan' Kozimor sziwan-DETuoxkZsSqrDJvtcaxF/A@public.gmane.org