From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: s.neumann@raumfeld.com (Sven Neumann)
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 10:23:17 +0200
Subject: 2.6.35.6 fails to suspend (pxa2xx-mci.0)
In-Reply-To: <201010072323.05218.rjw@sisk.pl>
References: <1286177435.2140.5.camel@sven> <201010070218.41944.rjw@sisk.pl>
	<1286463808.797.10.camel@bender>  <201010072323.05218.rjw@sisk.pl>
Message-ID: <1286526197.4493.19.camel@sven>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 23:23 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

> > > I wonder what happens if you echo 0 to /sys/power/pm_async ?
> > 
> > Nothing happens. The problem persists (tested with 2.6.36-rc7). What
> > would you expect to happen?
> 
> Exactly that. :-)
> 
> Commit 152e1d5920 should not affect the non-async case (I'd be surprised if
> it did really) and things should work with /sys/power/pm_async = 0 anyway.
> 
> Please try check if you can reproduce with commt 152e1d5920 reverted and
> /sys/power/pm_async = 0.  If you can, that's a driver bug.

Ok, for the record, here's what I tried. I have rebooted between tests
to make sure there's no state pulled in from the previous test:

 2.6.36-rc7, no changes,      pm_async 1 :  suspend fails
 2.6.36-rc7, no changes,      pm_async 0 :  suspend fails

 2.6.36-rc7, 152e1d reverted, pm_async 1 :  suspend works
 2.6.36-rc7, 152e1d reverted, pm_async 0 :  suspend fails

 2.6.34.7, no changes,        pm_async 1 :  suspend works
 2.6.34.7, no changes,        pm_async 0 :  suspend works

I am not sure how this should be interpreted.


Sven