[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200812030131.42157.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 01:31:41 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org,
lenb@...nel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
tiwai@...e.de, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Regression from 2.6.26: Hibernation (possibly suspend) broken on Toshiba R500 (bisected)
On Wednesday, 3 of December 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, 3 of December 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2 Dec 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >
> > > * dmesg output including one hibernation-resume cycle from 2.6.28-rc7 with the
> > > debug patch (appended for completness):
> > >
> > > http://www.sisk.pl/kernel/debug/mainline/2.6.28-rc7/dmesg-rc7-patched-prep.log
> > >
> > > * dmesg output including one hibernation-resume cycle from 2.6.28-rc7 without
> > > the debug patch:
> > >
> > > http://www.sisk.pl/kernel/debug/mainline/2.6.28-rc7/dmesg-rc7-nopatch-prep.log
> >
> > As with Frans, the debug patch seems to make no difference what-so-ever.
> > Yes, the cardbus regions get allocated differently, but they're fine in
> > either case, and arguably (exactly as with Frans) the debug patch actually
> > makes things uglier by actively getting the alignment wrong, and skipping
> > cardbus setup until later.
>
> Hm, what about (from the copy of /proc/iomem without the patch at
> http://www.sisk.pl/kernel/debug/mainline/2.6.28-rc7/rc7-nopatch/iomem):
>
> 88000000-8bffffff : PCI Bus 0000:03
> 88000000-8bffffff : PCI CardBus 0000:04
> 8c000000-91ffffff : PCI Bus 0000:03
> 8c000000-8fffffff : PCI CardBus 0000:04
>
> (1) Why two ranges are allocated for 0000:03 without the patch while there is
> only one range with the patch:
>
> 88000000-880fffff : PCI Bus 0000:03
>
> (copy of the file at
> http://www.sisk.pl/kernel/debug/mainline/2.6.28-rc7/rc7-patched/iomem)?
> That seems to look like a difference to me.
OK, I see why this happens.
> (2) Why are they so large without the patch while with the patch they are much
> smaller (O(2^28) vs O(2^21) if I'm not mistaken)?
I don't see why this should happen, though. Even if the prefetch window is
discarded, the MEM window seems to be much wider without the patch.
> (3) Why are they overlapping with the ranges for CardBus 0000:04, although
> without the patch they aren't? Is that actually correct at all?
OK, I see why this happens too.
Sorry for the noise,
Rafael
--
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