From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ole.rohne-vJEk5272eHo@public.gmane.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] [suspend/resume] wrong wakeup address Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 13:40:41 +0200 Sender: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Message-ID: References: <16A54BF5D6E14E4D916CE26C9AD30575546CFA@pdsmsx402.ccr.corp.intel.com> <20041015111546.GB2015@elf.ucw.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Errors-To: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: To: acpi-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Pavel> Could you verify that address passed to firmware_waking_vector() is Pavel> actually different? I haven't checked lately, but I think without any fancy BIGMEM options, the difference is 0xc0000000, only affecting the upper 4 bits. Pavel> If the toshiba works with wrong return address... perhaps only Pavel> high bits differ and toshiba just ignores them? IUC, a (32bit) ACPI implementation should use bits 4-19 for CS and bits 0-3 for IP for the real-mode wake-up address. Ole ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: IT Product Guide on ITManagersJournal Use IT products in your business? Tell us what you think of them. Give us Your Opinions, Get Free ThinkGeek Gift Certificates! Click to find out more http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/guidepromo.tmpl