Re: ACPI power off regression in 2.6.23-rc8 (NOT in rc7)

[Alexey Starikovskiy <astarikovskiy@suse.de>]

Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, 25 September 2007 15:15, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
>> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 25 September 2007 14:53, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
>>>> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, 25 September 2007 14:05, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
>>>>>> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 25 September 2007 13:45, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 25 September 2007 11:58, Damien Wyart wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> No, I do not have CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP set,
>>>>>>>>>>> because I do not have CONFIG_PM_SLEEP set,
>>>>>>>>>>> because I do not want SUSPEND and/or HIBERNATION.
>>>>>>>>>> Same answer from my side: I do not have CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP for the same
>>>>>>>>>> reason (and this worked fine without them in rc7). I do not think
>>>>>>>>>> these settings should have changed between rc7 and rc8.
>>>>>>>> Well, we haven't changed much.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Also, another test I just did: on another computer, rc8 is fine
>>>>>>>>> regarding ACPI power off, even if CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP is not set. I can
>>>>>>>>> provide config if needed.
>>>>>>>> On the box that fails to power off, can you please test -rc8 with these two
>>>>>>>> commits reverted:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> commit 5a50fe709d527f31169263e36601dd83446d5744
>>>>>>>> ACPI: suspend: consolidate handling of Sx states addendum
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> commit f216cc3748a3a22c2b99390fddcdafa0583791a2
>>>>>>>> ACPI: suspend: consolidate handling of Sx states.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and see if it works?
>>>>>>> If it does, please test the patch from this message
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=119052978117735&w=4
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> on top of vanilla 2.6.23-rc8.
>>>>>> You will need one more patch on top of just mentioned one.
>>>>> Hm, why did you put acpi_target_sleep_state under CONFIG_SUSPEND?
>>>>>
>>>>> CONFIG_HIBERNATION needs acpi_target_sleep_state  too.
>>>> Agree, attaching updated patch.
>>> Well, please use "ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP" instead of
>>> "if defined(CONFIG_SUSPEND)||defined(CONFIG_HIBERNATION)",
>>> as you did with the second block.
>> I was thinking about that, but it seem to be less clear... 
>> We need this variable only for suspend or hibernation, nothing else.
>> with pm_sleep it is not visible at all.
>>
>> Thoughts?
> 
> Well, PM_SLEEP is defined as (SUSPEND || HIBERNATION), please have a look
> at kernel/power/Kconfig, and it was introduced exactly for the conditions like
> this.
I've seen this then I wrote the patch :) See my point, it is not clear, 
that PM_SLEEP is equivalent to SUSPEND || HIBERNATION, one needs to 
grep Kconfig files to find that -- it means that code becomes less readable, 
and I would like to avoid that.
> 
> IOW, if we want something to be used for anything else than suspend or
> hibernation, it shouldn't be defined under PM_SLEEP.
Agree, but we should distinguish there it is better to use PM_SLEEP, 
and there it is better to use (SUSPEND || HIBERNATION) just to be more expressive...

Regards,
Alex.