From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Adam Belay Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix console handling during suspend/resume Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 21:50:17 -0400 Message-ID: <20060615015017.GD4823@neo.rr.com> References: <20060614103404.GC28536@elf.ucw.cz> <20060614214048.GG4950@ucw.cz> <20060614221235.GA7751@elf.ucw.cz> <20060615003926.GA11083@neo.rr.com> <20060615004052.GA19545@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060615004052.GA19545@kroah.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.osdl.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.osdl.org To: Greg KH Cc: Linus Torvalds , Power management list , Pavel Machek List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 05:40:52PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 08:39:26PM -0400, Adam Belay wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 03:37:51PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > And btw, the reason it didn't resume originally was because _we_ did = > > > things wrong. The PCI command word mustn't be writen before the rest = of = > > > the config space has been restored (one of the things I used my debug= ging = > > > patches for, until I noticed that -mm had the same fix independently,= so = > > > that's the one that is merged right now ;) > > = > > I was hoping to see a more complete fix merged. This patch still write= s to a > > large number of read-only registers, touches BIST (which can be dangero= us on > > some hardware), and isn't careful about the initial state of the PCI co= mmand > > word. > > = > > I attempted to rework pci_save/restore_state() a couple weeks ago: > > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=3Dlinux-kernel&m=3D114949711413176&w=3D2 > > = > > Any comments would be appreciated. > = > Your patches are still in my queue, so don't worry, they aren't being > ignored (the other restore patch had been in my tree, and in -mm for a > long time, and deserved to be merged already.) Thanks, I appreciate you keeping them in mind. > In other email threads, the idea came up that we should probably be > restoring more than just the "basic" configuration. PCI-E and PCI-X 2.0 > devices have a much bigger config space, and there's the "new > capabilities list" that we should also probably restore in the proper > manner if present. Yes, I think we currently only restore MSI. I'll look into adding support for other capabilities that might need it. Regards, Adam