[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48F24EAE.6020108@suse.de>
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 23:23:26 +0400
From: Alexey Starikovskiy <astarikovskiy@...e.de>
To: Alan Jenkins <alan-jenkins@...fmail.co.uk>
CC: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Alexey Starikovskiy <aystarik@...il.com>,
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
Alan Jenkins wrote:
> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Saturday, 11 of October 2008, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
>>
>>> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>
>>>>> No, we discussed this before -- we are outside of the transaction, thus
>>>>> no GPE
>>>>> activity could interfere with ec_check_ibf0.
>>>>>
>>>> Ok, this is in the process context and we don't really expect to get an
>>>> interrupt at this point, but what happens if the EC generates an event that's
>>>> not related to any transiaction. Is that guaranteed to never happen?
>>>>
>>> Interrupt handler in this case can't cause a change to status register, thus our
>>> read of it will not be affected by interrupt.
>>>
>> Ok, thanks.
>>
>> Alan, does the patch work for you?
>>
>> Rafael
>>
>
> Yes. Two reboot cycles, three suspend/resume cycles each, and no error
> message.
>
> I hope we have a better fix in mind though :-P. The patch doesn't solve
> the unnecessary 500ms delay when this thing happens.
Something like this?
Regards,
Alex.
View attachment "2.patch" of type "text/x-diff" (1226 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists