From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tglx@linutronix.de (Thomas Gleixner) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 19:41:13 +0100 (CET) Subject: resume regression in 2.6.37 In-Reply-To: <1295273083.2060.34.camel@sven> References: <1294933492.2535.23.camel@sven> <1294938961.10740.24.camel@sven> <1295260580.2060.29.camel@sven> <1295273083.2060.34.camel@sven> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org 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