resume regression in 2.6.37

[tglx@linutronix.de (Thomas Gleixner)]

On Mon, 17 Jan 2011, Sven Neumann wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 13:40 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Jan 2011, Sven Neumann wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, 2011-01-13 at 18:33 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > Without the revert there is absolutely no sign of resume. With the
> > > > > change reverted I can see that the PXA powers up again, there's an LED
> > > > > showing that the USB controller has power again. Unfortunately there's
> > > > > seems to be another problem and the resume doesn't complete. I've tried
> > > > > to get console output by using no_console_suspend, but there's just
> > > > > gibberish on the console after resume :(
> > > > > 
> > > > > Any idea on how to proceed from here? I could perhaps ask our hardware
> > > > > engineer to try find out where exactly we are stuck in the resume. But
> > > > > I'd like to avoid that if possible.
> > > > 
> > > > Can you stick a printk into the set_wake() function of that irq chip
> > > > and print the irq and on arguments and the return value . Run that
> > > > with both stock 2.6.37 and the patch reverted.
> > > 
> > > pxa3xx_set_wake(31, 1) returns 0
> > > 
> > > Same result with stock 2.6.37 and the patch reverted. Except that
> > > without the patch reverted, the device doesn't power up again.
> > 
> > Ok, can we agree that the patch has no functional impact on the
> > set_wake function? And I don't see a reason why reverting that patch
> > results in a working resume. That does not make sense at all. Which
> > compiler version are you using ?
> 
> I agree that this is all very weird and as far as I understand the patch
> it should have no functional impact. Unfortunately reverting the patch
> does not result in a working resume, but at least it makes a difference
> and at the moment it's the only trace I have.
> 
> My cross-compile tool-chain uses GCC 4.3.5.

Can you try a different compiler ?

Thanks,

	tglx