From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759665AbYDAT4y (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Apr 2008 15:56:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754626AbYDAT4q (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Apr 2008 15:56:46 -0400 Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:48041 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752492AbYDAT4p (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Apr 2008 15:56:45 -0400 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI PM: Restore the 2.6.24 suspend ordering Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 21:55:51 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 20070904.708012) 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 References: <200803300319.08398.rjw@sisk.pl> <200803301515.33922.rjw@sisk.pl> <20080401084523.GA25278@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> In-Reply-To: <20080401084523.GA25278@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200804012155.52547.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday, 1 of April 2008, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! 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? IMO we should not use that, because it's broken. That's why I posted the patch. Thanks, Rafael