From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alan Jenkins Subject: Re: acpi-test tree on eeepc: EC error message on second resume Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 09:22:44 +0100 Message-ID: <48F30554.1010607@tuffmail.co.uk> References: <48F0DB0C.7060201@tuffmail.co.uk> <200810112140.16662.rjw@sisk.pl> <48F100CA.2050600@suse.de> <200810112254.09094.rjw@sisk.pl> <48F1BFD0.7040004@tuffmail.co.uk> <48F24EAE.6020108@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from ey-out-2122.google.com ([74.125.78.25]:57159 "EHLO ey-out-2122.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754724AbYJMIWt (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Oct 2008 04:22:49 -0400 Received: by ey-out-2122.google.com with SMTP id 6so536522eyi.37 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 01:22:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <48F24EAE.6020108@suse.de> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Alexey Starikovskiy Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Alexey Starikovskiy , linux acpi , linux-kernel Alexis Starikovskiy wrote: > Alan Jenkins wrote: >> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> 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 >>> >> >> Yes. Two reboot cycles, three suspend/resume cycles each, and no error >> message. >> >> I hope we have a better fix in mind though :-P. The patch doesn't solve >> the unnecessary 500ms delay when this thing happens. > > Something like this? > > Regards, > Alex. You sent it as an attachment again :-). That should work, odd as it looks. We don't need to worry about the GPE workaround because that's only active _inside_ the transaction. I don't know what Zhao thinks is missing. Sorry I can't test right now. I tried to install 3D support on my laptop for showing-off purposes, and somehow broke X. Thanks Alan