From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
To: Alexey Starikovskiy <astarikovskiy@suse.de>
Subject: Re: ACPI power off regression in 2.6.23-rc8 (NOT in rc7)
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:52:04 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5
Cc: Alexey Starikovskiy <aystarik@gmail.com>,
       Damien Wyart <damien.wyart@free.fr>,
       Torsten Kaiser <just.for.lkml@googlemail.com>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
       LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>,
       Frans Pop <elendil@planet.nl>, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org
References: <20070925065109.GA3080@localhost.localdomain> <200709251618.06064.rjw@sisk.pl> <46F918F8.1080808@suse.de>
In-Reply-To: <46F918F8.1080808@suse.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200709251652.05589.rjw@sisk.pl>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 3896
Lines: 81

On Tuesday, 25 September 2007 16:19, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 25 September 2007 15:15, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
> >> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, 25 September 2007 14:53, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
> >>>> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, 25 September 2007 14:05, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
> >>>>>> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, 25 September 2007 13:45, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 25 September 2007 11:58, Damien Wyart wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> No, I do not have CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP set,
> >>>>>>>>>>> because I do not have CONFIG_PM_SLEEP set,
> >>>>>>>>>>> because I do not want SUSPEND and/or HIBERNATION.
> >>>>>>>>>> Same answer from my side: I do not have CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP for the same
> >>>>>>>>>> reason (and this worked fine without them in rc7). I do not think
> >>>>>>>>>> these settings should have changed between rc7 and rc8.
> >>>>>>>> Well, we haven't changed much.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Also, another test I just did: on another computer, rc8 is fine
> >>>>>>>>> regarding ACPI power off, even if CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP is not set. I can
> >>>>>>>>> provide config if needed.
> >>>>>>>> On the box that fails to power off, can you please test -rc8 with these two
> >>>>>>>> commits reverted:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> commit 5a50fe709d527f31169263e36601dd83446d5744
> >>>>>>>> ACPI: suspend: consolidate handling of Sx states addendum
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> commit f216cc3748a3a22c2b99390fddcdafa0583791a2
> >>>>>>>> ACPI: suspend: consolidate handling of Sx states.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> and see if it works?
> >>>>>>> If it does, please test the patch from this message
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=119052978117735&w=4
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> on top of vanilla 2.6.23-rc8.
> >>>>>> You will need one more patch on top of just mentioned one.
> >>>>> Hm, why did you put acpi_target_sleep_state under CONFIG_SUSPEND?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> CONFIG_HIBERNATION needs acpi_target_sleep_state  too.
> >>>> Agree, attaching updated patch.
> >>> Well, please use "ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP" instead of
> >>> "if defined(CONFIG_SUSPEND)||defined(CONFIG_HIBERNATION)",
> >>> as you did with the second block.
> >> I was thinking about that, but it seem to be less clear... 
> >> We need this variable only for suspend or hibernation, nothing else.
> >> with pm_sleep it is not visible at all.
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> > 
> > Well, PM_SLEEP is defined as (SUSPEND || HIBERNATION), please have a look
> > at kernel/power/Kconfig, and it was introduced exactly for the conditions like
> > this.
> I've seen this then I wrote the patch :) See my point, it is not clear, 
> that PM_SLEEP is equivalent to SUSPEND || HIBERNATION, one needs to 
> grep Kconfig files to find that -- it means that code becomes less readable, 
> and I would like to avoid that.

I see your point.  Still, you are using PM_SLEEP in the same file, so someone
reading the code for the first time will have to find out what it is anyway.

OTOH, the only function of PM_SLEEP is to be a replacement for
(SUSPEND || HIBERNATION).  It has no other meaning whatsoever.

[Well, sorry, I couldn't invent a better name.]
 
> > IOW, if we want something to be used for anything else than suspend or
> > hibernation, it shouldn't be defined under PM_SLEEP.
> Agree, but we should distinguish there it is better to use PM_SLEEP, 
> and there it is better to use (SUSPEND || HIBERNATION) just to be more expressive...

Well, since PM_SLEEP is used as (SUSPEND || HIBERNATION) everywhere else,
I think that it would actually be confusing not to use it here. :-)

Greetings,
Rafael
-
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/