[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wik6C7uCyPZ_qwv0M29uVUdgrpOdubfaVHF8FVBAsCivA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 13:20:27 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Linux 5.6-rc2
On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 8:22 AM Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Quoting Linus Torvalds (2020-02-16 21:32:32)
> > Rafael J. Wysocki (4):
> > ACPI: EC: Fix flushing of pending work
> > ACPI: PM: s2idle: Avoid possible race related to the EC GPE
> > ACPICA: Introduce acpi_any_gpe_status_set()
> > ACPI: PM: s2idle: Prevent spurious SCIs from waking up the system
>
> Our S0 testing broke on all platforms, so we've reverted
> e3728b50cd9b ("ACPI: PM: s2idle: Avoid possible race related to the EC GPE")
> fdde0ff8590b ("ACPI: PM: s2idle: Prevent spurious SCIs from waking up the system")
>
> There wasn't much in the logs, for example,
> https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/IGT_5445/fi-kbl-7500u/igt@gem_exec_suspend@basic-s0.html
So the machine suspends, but never comes back?
Do you need to revert both for it to work for you? Or is the revert of
fdde0ff8590b just to avoid the conflict?
I'm assuming you bisected this, and the bisect indicated e3728b50cd9b,
and then to revert it you reverted the other commit too..
Or what?
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists