Re: [PATCH 8/9] PCI / ACPI / PM: Platform support for PCI PME wake-up (rev. 7)

Gary Hade
2010-02-10T20:38:52Z

On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 07:00:54PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 February 2010, Gary Hade wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 02:12:29AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 10 February 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday 10 February 2010, Gary Hade wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Feb 09, 2010 at 12:58:39PM -0800, Gary Hade wrote:
> > > > ...
> > > > > > OK. I already confirmed that the problem reproduces with your
> > > > > > patches applied. I am now in the process of trying vanilla
> > > > > > 2.6.33-rc7. If hot-add works with 2.6.33-rc7 I will give
> > > > > > your patch a try.
> > > > >
> > > > > The hot-add worked fine with an unpatched 2.6.33-rc7.
> > > >
> > > > Good.
> > > >
> > > > > The new patch when added to the 2.6.33-rc7 tree that
> > > > > included the original patchset unfortunately did not
> > > > > correct the problem.
> > > >
> > > > Bad.
> > > >
> > > > Well, fortunately I have another one, but I haven't tested it myself yet except
> > > > for checking that it builds. Hopefully it won't break things more.
> > > >
> > > > The patch below applies on top of 2.6.33-rc7 with my PCI runtime PM patchset
> > > > applied. Please test it and let me know the results.
> > >
> > > Sorry, I sent a wrong version of the patch by mistake, it doesn't even build.
> > > The correct one is appended.
> >
> > No problem. I received this message before doing anything with
> > the previous one.
> >
> > Sorry, both hot-add and hot-remove behaviors appear unchanged
> > with this patch.
>
> Hmm, that's kind of strange. I'm getting suspicious.
>
> > I would like to dig into the code and help with the debugging
> > but I am swamped with other things right now. However, feel
> > free to continue using me for testing if you have other ideas
> > you want me to try.
>
> Thanks, of course I have some ideas. :-)
>
> First, please try to test 2.6.33-rc7 with patches [1/9] - [7/9] applied
> (ie. without the $subject patch and [9/9]). Let's make sure we're debugging
> the right patch.

It does look like both the hot-add and hot-remove issues were
introduced by something in 1/9 through 7/9. I started with a
clean 2.6.33-rc7 tree and applied only 1/9 through 7/9. I still
see that lingering blinking amber LED with hot-remove and no
response from the driver during hot-add.

Now I suppose you want me to start reverting 1/9 through 7/9
in reverse order to find the culprit. :)

Gary

--
Gary Hade
System x Enablement
IBM Linux Technology Center
503-578-4503 IBM T/L: 775-4503
garyhade@us.ibm.com