From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: ACPI suspend: test 64-bit waking vector (was Re: [PATCH] ACPI suspend: Always use the 32-bit waking vector) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 09:28:58 +0200 Message-ID: <20080917072858.GA2659@elf.ucw.cz> References: <1220507476.4007.117.camel@yakui_zhao.sh.intel.com> <200809061313.02088.rjw@sisk.pl> <20080915111836.GA17913@elf.ucw.cz> <200809170745.19645.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from gprs189-60.eurotel.cz ([160.218.189.60]:41454 "EHLO gprs189-60.eurotel.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751397AbYIQH1f (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Sep 2008 03:27:35 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200809170745.19645.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Suspend-devel list , "Li, Shaohua" , "Zhao, Yakui" , Matthew Garrett , "Zhang, Rui" , "lenb@kernel.org" , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , "andi@firstfloor.org" On Wed 2008-09-17 07:45:18, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Monday, 15 of September 2008, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Hi! > > > > ACPI specificiation tells us that x_firmware_waking_vector is > > preffered, and maybe it works better than firmware_waking_vector on > > some machines. > > > > Unfortunately, it does not seem to work on thinkpad x60... but I am > > not sure if I'm not doing something wrong. > > > > Testing/ideas would be welcome. > > Well, the spec says that if x_firmware_waking_vector is non-zero, the BIOS is > supposed to call your wake-up code in Protected Mode ... That's why I'm passing physical address of 32-bit code... or am I supposed to pass 48-bit selector:offset pair? But what GDT will BIOS use in that case? Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html