From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753410Ab0JKILA (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Oct 2010 04:11:00 -0400 Received: from vwp2514.webpack.hosteurope.de ([87.230.42.24]:57359 "EHLO vwp2514.webpack.hosteurope.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752648Ab0JKIK6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Oct 2010 04:10:58 -0400 Subject: Re: 2.6.35.6 fails to suspend (pxa2xx-mci.0) From: Sven Neumann To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Daniel Mack , Colin Cross , Greg Kroah-Hartman , linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org In-Reply-To: <201010082208.25767.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <1286177435.2140.5.camel@sven> <201010072323.05218.rjw@sisk.pl> <1286526197.4493.19.camel@sven> <201010082208.25767.rjw@sisk.pl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Organization: RAUMFELD GmbH Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 10:10:54 +0200 Message-ID: <1286784654.3101.6.camel@sven> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-bounce-key: webpack.hosteurope.de;s.neumann@raumfeld.com;1286784658;65843827; Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2010-10-08 at 22:08 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Friday, October 08, 2010, Sven Neumann wrote: > > 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. > > There is a problem with the pxa2xx-mci.0 suspend that has been introduced > some time after 2.6.34, but it is not related to commit 152e1d5920. The > problem was not visible with pm_async=1 because of the very bug fixed by > commit 152e1d5920. > > Please see if the problem is there in 2.6.35 (please test with pm_async=0). Works fine with v2.6.35: 2.6.35, no changes, pm_async 1 : suspend works 2.6.35, no changes, pm_async 0 : suspend works So it looks like the problem has been introduced after 2.6.35 and was backported... Greetings, Sven