Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752778Ab0DYDO5 (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 Apr 2010 23:14:57 -0400 Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:39777 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751150Ab0DYDOz (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 Apr 2010 23:14:55 -0400 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: commit 9630bdd9 changes behavior of the poweroff - bug? Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 05:15:08 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.4 (Linux/2.6.34-rc4-rjw; KDE/4.3.5; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Tony Vroon , Jesse Barnes , Matthew Garrett , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ACPI Devel Maling List , pm list References: <20100401133923.GA4104@tiehlicka.suse.cz> <201004191719.53602.rjw@sisk.pl> <201004250435.42779.rjw@sisk.pl> In-Reply-To: <201004250435.42779.rjw@sisk.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201004250515.08671.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 4506 Lines: 98 On Sunday 25 April 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Monday 19 April 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Monday 19 April 2010, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Fri 16-04-10 20:00:29, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > On Wednesday 14 April 2010, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > On Tue 13-04-10 22:53:37, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > On Tuesday 13 April 2010, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue 13-04-10 01:01:54, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > > > On Saturday 10 April 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Friday 09 April 2010, Tony Vroon wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 22:42 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Please check if the patch below changes anything. > > > > > > > > > > > drivers/acpi/wakeup.c | 4 ++-- > > > > > > > > > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That didn't change the behaviour for me, sorry. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, I would be sorry if it did, because the patch removed some useful code. :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (I made sure to go through a full power down session before trying the > > > > > > > > > > patched kernel) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for testing. So it looks like we don't disable the GPE during power off. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll try to figure out what's going on, please stay tuned. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you please check if the patch below changes the behavior? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, it didn't help either (I have tried on top of the fresh > > > > > > > rc4). > > > > > > > > > > > > That gets really weird. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > drivers/acpi/wakeup.c | 6 +++--- > > > > > > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Index: linux-2.6/drivers/acpi/wakeup.c > > > > > > > > =================================================================== > > > > > > > > --- linux-2.6.orig/drivers/acpi/wakeup.c > > > > > > > > +++ linux-2.6/drivers/acpi/wakeup.c > > > > > > > > @@ -63,17 +63,17 @@ void acpi_enable_wakeup_device(u8 sleep_ > > > > > > > > list_for_each_safe(node, next, &acpi_wakeup_device_list) { > > > > > > > > struct acpi_device *dev = > > > > > > > > container_of(node, struct acpi_device, wakeup_list); > > > > > > > > + u8 action = ACPI_GPE_ENABLE; > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you try to change the above to ACPI_GPE_DISABLE and retest, please? > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately didn't help as well... > > > > > Just for reference: > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/wakeup.c b/drivers/acpi/wakeup.c > > > > > index 248b473..f23c08f 100644 > > > > > --- a/drivers/acpi/wakeup.c > > > > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/wakeup.c > > > > > @@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ void acpi_enable_wakeup_device(u8 sleep_state) > > > > > list_for_each_safe(node, next, &acpi_wakeup_device_list) { > > > > > struct acpi_device *dev = > > > > > container_of(node, struct acpi_device, wakeup_list); > > > > > - u8 action = ACPI_GPE_ENABLE; > > > > > + u8 action = ACPI_GPE_DISABLE; > > > > > > > > That probably means the chipset enables the GPEs by itself _after_ we've > > > > disabled them in acpi_enable_wakeup_device(). > > > > > > Is this something BIOS specific? > > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, I can't reproduce the issue on any of my test boxes and it's > > > > hard to find the source of the problem staring at the code. > > > > > > Are there any debug options I can turn on to provide some information? > > > > We can only check what the kernel tells us before power off, but all that seems > > correct. > > > > > Btw. what exactly does this mean? In what state is the laptop while it > > > is turned off and GPE is enabled? > > > > If a GPE is enabled, then some part of the chipset has power provided so that > > it can signal wakeup. > > > > I'll look into it a bit more later today. > > Please try the patch below. It kind of restores the previous behavior, > let's see if it changes anything. If it doesn't help, please try to comment out the acpi_enable_gpe() in drivers/acpi/wakeup.c:acpi_wakeup_device_init() and retest (if you haven't done that already). 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/