Don't save state in ACPI on shutdown/reboot]
PATCH 1/1 Don't save state in ACPI on shutdown/reboot]
The ACPI code in 2.4 currently saves the machine state as for a suspend when doing an reboot or shutdown. This fails on x86-64 on some boxes.
Don't save/restore state in ACPI when entering S5.
-Andi
drivers/acpi/system.c renamed from drivers/acpi/system.c-o +4 -2
@@ -118,7 +118,8 @@* been loaded from disk. */ if (state >ACPI_STATE_S1 ) { -acpi_restore_state_mem (); +if (state !=ACPI_STATE_S5 ) +acpi_restore_state_mem ();/* Do _early_ resume for irqs. Required by * ACPI specs.
@@ -127,6 +128,7 @@* interrupts. */ #ifdef CONFIG_X86 +/* AK: this looks rather broken in APIC mode */ init_8259A (0 );#endif /* wait for power to come back */
@@ -200,7 +202,7 @@ACPI_FLUSH_CPU_CACHE ();/* Do arch specific saving of state. */ -if (state >ACPI_STATE_S1 ) { +if (state >ACPI_STATE_S1 && state <ACPI_STATE_S5 ) { error =acpi_save_state_mem ();/* TBD: if no s4bios, write codes for
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
Quoted 1 line · Len Brown
Content-Description: Forwarded message - [PATCH] Don't save state in ACPI on shutdown/reboot
Quoted 5 lines
From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
To: marcelo.tosatti-3EexvZdKGZRWk0Htik3J/[email protected], [email protected]
Subject: [PATCH] Don't save state in ACPI on shutdown/reboot
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.31 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Nov 2003 13:15:03.0923 (UTC)
Quoted 8 lines
FILETIME=[D1A1BC30:01C3A855]The ACPI code in 2.4 currently saves the machine state as for a suspend when doing an reboot or shutdown. This fails on x86-64 on some boxes.
Don't save/restore state in ACPI when entering S5.
That break also some i386 boxes. That why I submitted another patch (do I have to post it again?)
Quoted 3 lines
-Andi
...
drivers/acpi/system.c line 132
Quoted 6 lines
drivers/acpi/system.c renamed from drivers/acpi/system.c-o +1
-0@@ -127,6 +128,7 @@* interrupts. */ #ifdef CONFIG_X86 +/* AK: this looks rather broken in APIC mode */ init_8259A (0 );
I know. In fact, this may be not sufficiant for PIC mode as well.
Signature · 11 lines
Ducrot Bruno -- Which is worse: ignorance or apathy? -- Don't know. Don't care. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: ApacheCon 2003, 16-19 November in Las Vegas. Learn firsthand the latest developments in Apache, PHP, Perl, XML, Java, MySQL, WebDAV, and more! http://www.apachecon.com/
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
Quoted 8 lines · Ducrot Bruno
Quoted 5 lines
The ACPI code in 2.4 currently saves the machine state as for a suspend when doing an reboot or shutdown. This fails on x86-64 on some boxes.
Don't save/restore state in ACPI when entering S5.
That break also some i386 boxes. That why I submitted another patch (do I have to post it again?)
Do you mean Andi's patch breaks i386 boxes, or this bug also appears on i386 ? The former seems unlikely from the look of Andi's patch.
What does your patch do?
Dave
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email sponsored by: ApacheCon 2003, 16-19 November in Las Vegas. Learn firsthand the latest developments in Apache, PHP, Perl, XML, Java, MySQL, WebDAV, and more! http://www.apachecon.com/
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
Quoted 6 lines · Dave Jones
Quoted 4 lines · Ducrot Bruno
Quoted 4 lines
The ACPI code in 2.4 currently saves the machine state as for a suspend when doing an reboot or shutdown. This fails on x86-64 on some boxes.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 1 line
Don't save/restore state in ACPI when entering S5.
That break also some i386 boxes. That why I submitted another patch (do I have to post it again?)
Do you mean Andi's patch breaks i386 boxes, or this bug also appears on i386 ? The former seems unlikely from the look of Andi's patch.
I wanted to point that some i386 boxes are broken as well, and then a patch is needed. And yes, when I read again my email, that a bit confusing.
The patch I send actually implement the exact same behaviour of 2.6 (minus S5 via the proc file, disabled on 2.6).
Also, it is much likely a design fix. 'power off' shall not be dependant of CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP (even though than one is always yes for 2.4 if CONFIG_ACPI, at least on i386).
Cheers,
Signature · 11 lines
Ducrot Bruno -- Which is worse: ignorance or apathy? -- Don't know. Don't care. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: ApacheCon 2003, 16-19 November in Las Vegas. Learn firsthand the latest developments in Apache, PHP, Perl, XML, Java, MySQL, WebDAV, and more! http://www.apachecon.com/