Re: [3.4-rc5 -> 3.4-rc6 regression] Asus P5NSLI: lockup on resume from suspend

Octavio Alvarez
2012-07-08T04:29:14Z

On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 19:57:30 -0700, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
wrote:

>>> commit 2feec47d4c5f80b05f1650f5a24865718978eea4
>>> Author: Bob Moore <robert.moore@intel.com>
>>> Date: Tue Feb 14 15:00:53 2012 +0800
>>>
>>> ACPICA: ACPI 5: Support for new FADT SleepStatus, SleepControl
>>> registers
> [...]
>> Yes, okay, that is indeed totally separate. You should bring that
>> issue up with Bob Moore and Len Brown on the linux-acpi mailing list.
>
> The Debian bug for this one is <http://bugs.debian.org/680707>.
> Please cc me or 680707@bugs.debian.org if bringing it up with ACPI
> folks so we can track the discussion.

Jonathan, so I decided to continue the discussion of the wakeup-lockup
bug here, so I can Cc: 680707 and the commit author. I have adjusted
the subject to the new subject you stated in the cloned Debian bug.

I removed Ben Hutchings and Alan Stern from the Cc. Please feel free
to add them back.

Hello, Bob!

This is a follow-up email on Debian bug 680707.

I am experiencing lock-ups in my machine. You will notice the bug
initially refers to a different problem. That's because this bug
was discovered by accident on my machine, while testing for a
different suspend bug with a newer kernel version.

The problem is a full system lock-up on resume. The HD led stays on.
The 5-sec power-button cycle isn't enough to get the system back.
It requires a full mechanical power cycle from the power supply.

I bisected the problem as requested by Alan Stern, and tracked it
down to the following commit:

commit 2feec47d4c5f80b05f1650f5a24865718978eea4
Author: Bob Moore <robert.moore@intel.com>
Date: Tue Feb 14 15:00:53 2012 +0800

ACPICA: ACPI 5: Support for new FADT SleepStatus, SleepControl
registers

Adds sleep and wake support for systems with these registers.
One new file, hwxfsleep.c

Signed-off-by: Bob Moore <robert.moore@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>

There is already some information already captured in the Debian
bug log.

Is there anything I can do to help get this fixed?

Thanks!!

[1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=680707

--
Octavio.