[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48F0FEFA.7050308@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 23:31:06 +0400
From: Alexey Starikovskiy <aystarik@...il.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
CC: Alexey Starikovskiy <astarikovskiy@...e.de>,
Alan Jenkins <alan-jenkins@...fmail.co.uk>,
linux acpi <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: acpi-test tree on eeepc: EC error message on second resume
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday, 11 of October 2008, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
>
>> Alan Jenkins wrote:
>>
>>> I think I found the problem. The "input buffer empty" wait depends on
>>> "interrupt mode" to work properly, and we don't immediately enable the
>>> interrupt on resume. The wait should have a polling fallback anyway, to
>>> be consistent with the other transaction waits.
>>>
>>> Alan
>>>
>> Yep, I think something like attached patch may help:
>>
>
> [Can you please append patches instead of or apart from attaching them?
> That would make it easier to comment them.]
>
>
Ok.
> if (!wait_event_timeout(ec->wait, ec_check_ibf0(ec),
> - msecs_to_jiffies(ACPI_EC_DELAY))) {
> + msecs_to_jiffies(ACPI_EC_DELAY)) &&
> + !ec_check_ibf0(ec)) {
>
> Shouldn't this go under the spinlock? Surely it can race with the GPE handler.
>
>
No, we discussed this before -- we are outside of the transaction, thus
no GPE
activity could interfere with ec_check_ibf0.
Regards,
Alex.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists