Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757269Ab0D0WFn (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Apr 2010 18:05:43 -0400 Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:49461 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754768Ab0D0WFl (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Apr 2010 18:05:41 -0400 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: commit 9630bdd9 changes behavior of the poweroff - bug? Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 00:06:44 +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> <201004262051.09175.rjw@sisk.pl> <20100427065109.GA3907@tiehlicka.suse.cz> In-Reply-To: <20100427065109.GA3907@tiehlicka.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201004280006.44540.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 6617 Lines: 140 On Tuesday 27 April 2010, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 26-04-10 20:51:09, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Monday 26 April 2010, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Sun 25-04-10 04:35:42, 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. > > > > > > Again, no success. Just to make sure that I didn't screw anything. I > > > have used just the following patch on top of the clean rc5 (your patch > > > has failed with some rejects but I guess that the following should do > > > the same): > > > > Thanks for testing. Did you try the second thing, ie. 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)? > > I have tried it just now and still no success. > > > commit 1a7e7c9ac82aa2de185fa2f686417a5eb7765420 > Author: Michal Hocko > Date: Tue Apr 27 08:22:23 2010 +0200 > > disable acpi_enable_gpe in acpi_wakeup_device_init > > as suggested by Rafael. > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/wakeup.c b/drivers/acpi/wakeup.c > index 4b9d339..a0f4859 100644 > --- a/drivers/acpi/wakeup.c > +++ b/drivers/acpi/wakeup.c > @@ -113,8 +113,9 @@ int __init acpi_wakeup_device_init(void) > if (!dev->wakeup.flags.always_enabled || > dev->wakeup.state.enabled) > continue; > - acpi_enable_gpe(dev->wakeup.gpe_device, dev->wakeup.gpe_number, > + /*acpi_enable_gpe(dev->wakeup.gpe_device, dev->wakeup.gpe_number, > ACPI_GPE_TYPE_WAKE); > + */ > dev->wakeup.state.enabled = 1; > } > mutex_unlock(&acpi_device_lock); > > On top of the previous patch. If I understand that correctly then this > is really strange because this patch disables GPE completely, doesn't > it? Kind of, but this only happens for devices that are not handled by the button driver which now has become our primary suspect. 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/