Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264593AbTEPTwk (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 May 2003 15:52:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264597AbTEPTwk (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 May 2003 15:52:40 -0400 Received: from smtp-out2.iol.cz ([194.228.2.87]:17891 "EHLO smtp-out2.iol.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264593AbTEPTwi (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 May 2003 15:52:38 -0400 Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 21:41:28 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: Patrick Mochel Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.5.69-mm5: reverting i8259-shutdown.patch Message-ID: <20030516194128.GB372@elf.ucw.cz> References: <20030514193300.58645206.akpm@digeo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1875 Lines: 47 Hi! > > > Hi again, Andrew, > > > > > > Besides the "make_KOBJ_NAME-match_BUS_ID_SIZE.patch" causing "pccard" > > > oopses, I've also found that, with 2.5.69-mm5 compiled with ACPI > > > support, my laptop is unable to power off. The kernel invokes > > > "acpi_power_off" and stays there forever. > > > > > > I've found that reverting the "i8259-shutdown.patch" fixes the problem > > > and my laptop is able to shutdown properly (init 0) when using ACPI. > > > > > > A hardware bug? A kernel bug? > > > > And thanks again, again. > > > > That's the below patch. It looks pretty innocuous. I'd be assuming that > > there's something in the shutdown sequence which needs 8259 functionality > > after the thing has been turned off. > > > > This could well depend upon .config contents and linkage order. > > > > Eric, maybe we need to turn it off by hand at the right time rather than > > relying on driver model shutdown ordering? > > Interesting. This is yet more proof that system-level devices cannot be > treated as common, everyday devices. Sure, it's nice to see them show up > in sysfs with little overhead, and very nice not to have to work about > them during shutdown or power transitions. But there are just too many > special cases (like getting the ordering right ;) that you have to worry > about. > > So, what do we do with them? I guess shutdown needs to be treated like suspend, and needs to have "level". There should be no shutdown, you should do suspend(5, ) and go through all levels properly. Pavel -- When do you have a heart between your knees? [Johanka's followup: and *two* hearts?] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/