From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757851AbYDAIpe (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Apr 2008 04:45:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754118AbYDAIp0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Apr 2008 04:45:26 -0400 Received: from atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.31.123]:54092 "EHLO atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755897AbYDAIpY (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Apr 2008 04:45:24 -0400 Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 10:45:23 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Len Brown , ACPI Devel Maling List , Andrew Morton , Carlos Corbacho , Linus Torvalds , LKML , pm list , Shaohua Li , Felix M?ller , Arthur Erhardt , Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI PM: Restore the 2.6.24 suspend ordering Message-ID: <20080401084523.GA25278@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> References: <200803300319.08398.rjw@sisk.pl> <200803301358.39831.rjw@sisk.pl> <20080330122838.GA7093@elf.ucw.cz> <200803301515.33922.rjw@sisk.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200803301515.33922.rjw@sisk.pl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi! > > > > > For the reasons outlined above, the change of the suspend ordering > > > > > should be reverted, which is done by the patch below. > > > > > > > > But this will break those few nvidia-based systems, no? > > > > > > > > this may have been a good idea in -rc1 days, but we are in -rc7 > > > > now... and the patch is slightly big. > > > > > > It's quite obvious, though. > > > > Yes, but breaking systems between -rc7 and final is _very_ unnice. > > Breaking systems between 2.6.24 and 2.6.25 is even worse, which is why > I've posted this patch. > > IOW, we tried to fix systems that were broken with 2.6.24, but it didn't work, > because our "fix" broke systems that were OK with 2.6.24. Solution: revert > the "fix" and go back to the design board. That's all we can do so late in > the release cycle, IMO. Well, I agree that regression from 2.6.24 is worse, but it is _slightly_ worse... -rcs are really expected to improve... ...plus it no longer looks like macbook regression is caused by _PTS ordering? > > > I think we _can_ do something about the failing NVidia systems in the 2.6.26 > > > time frame, but that will require some more consideration. > > > > We could simply blacklist them, no? > > Yes, but for this purpose we'll have to redesign the core so that everything > (including debugging and the error paths) works if _PTS is executed before > suspending devices. _That_, however, is not a 2.6.25 thing. So we have solution that fixes 2.6.24 systems, makes system that worked in 2.6.25-rc5 work with command line option, but gets error handling wrong. I guess we could use that? Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html