>> I don't think anybody claimed this isn't a regression for the 600X.
>
>I narrowed it further. The short story is that this commit (diff below
>sig) makes the second S3 sleep go into the endless loop, if the loaded
>modules are exactly thermal, processor, intel_agp, and agpgart:
If you believe this patch is the root cause of the regression you have
been seeing. Then, I would say the thing is a little bit different with
ec_intr=0 and ec_intr=1. Basically, ec_intr=0 will disable EC related
ACPI interrupt before finishing _Qxx method execution , but ec_intr=1
always enable EC interrupt. This could cause some hardware/BIOS
events get lost under ec_intr=0, which shouldn't lost.
We need to figure out what's going on here rather than falling back to
ec_intr=0 behavior.
--Luming
>>> I don't think anybody claimed this isn't a regression for the 600X.
>> I narrowed it further. The short story is that this commit (diff
>> below sig) makes the second S3 sleep go into the endless loop, if
>> the loaded modules are exactly thermal, processor, intel_agp, and
>> agpgart:
> If you believe this patch is the root cause of the regression you
> have been seeing.
Not sure if you were waiting for me to say something, but I do believe
the change of default from ec_intr=0 to ec_intr=1 causes the problem
for me.
-Sanjoy
`Never underestimate the evil of which men of power are capable.'
--Bertrand Russell, _War Crimes in Vietnam_, chapter 1.