From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: ACPI failures on non-Intel hardware Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 18:15:54 +0100 Message-ID: <20041212171554.GD6272@elf.ucw.cz> References: <1102805280.5984.30.camel@tyrosine> <20041212164141.GC6286@elf.ucw.cz> <1102870780.5984.34.camel@tyrosine> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1102870780.5984.34.camel@tyrosine> 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: Matthew Garrett Cc: acpi-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org 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? I saw some Acer (do not recall model #, sorry, and it was probably prototype, anyway) where it died before wakeup. Pavel -- People were complaining that M$ turns users into beta-testers... ...jr ghea gurz vagb qrirybcref, naq gurl frrz gb yvxr vg gung jnl! ------------------------------------------------------- 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/