Re: [PATCH 1/2] suspend: Move NVS save/restore code to generic suspend functionality

Maxim Levitsky
2010-06-01T22:46:54Z

On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 00:40 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday 01 June 2010, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 23:31 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 01 June 2010, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > > > Saving platform non-volatile state may be required for suspend to RAM as
> > > > well as hibernation. Move it to more generic code.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Matthew Garrett <mjg@redhat.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Matthew Garrett <maximlevitsky@gmail.com>
> > >
> > > You made a mistake here.
> > >
> > > Also, why are you resending the Matthews patches? I think Len has seen them
> > > already.
> > Yea, a copypaste.
> >
> > (I was told that if one submits modified patch, it adds his
> > Signed-off-by.)
> >
> > I rebased these on top of
> > ACPI / EC / PM: Fix race between EC transactions and system suspend'
> >
> > To be honest, I just want to get some feedback on this.
> > This was major issue that kept me from using otherwise prefect suspend
> > to ram.
>
> I think this is a change we should try, but there is a chance it will break
> some systems.
I doubt that. BIOSes are tested against windows, and since it has this
behavior, all systems this patch could break wouldn't work in windows
ether.

I was doing all kinds of attempts to fix this bug, and finally I found
the cause for it.

Best regards,
Maxim Levitsky