From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: acpi-test tree on eeepc: EC error message on second resume Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 22:54:08 +0200 Message-ID: <200810112254.09094.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <48F0DB0C.7060201@tuffmail.co.uk> <200810112140.16662.rjw@sisk.pl> <48F100CA.2050600@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:59260 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754702AbYJKUtv (ORCPT ); Sat, 11 Oct 2008 16:49:51 -0400 In-Reply-To: <48F100CA.2050600@suse.de> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Alexey Starikovskiy Cc: Alexey Starikovskiy , Alan Jenkins , linux acpi , linux-kernel On Saturday, 11 of October 2008, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote: > Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> No, we discussed this before -- we are outside of the transaction, thus > >> no GPE > >> activity could interfere with ec_check_ibf0. > > > > Ok, this is in the process context and we don't really expect to get an > > interrupt at this point, but what happens if the EC generates an event that's > > not related to any transiaction. Is that guaranteed to never happen? > Interrupt handler in this case can't cause a change to status register, thus our > read of it will not be affected by interrupt. Ok, thanks. Alan, does the patch work for you? Rafael