Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 09 Aug 2000 02:44:55 -0300 | From | "Garst R. Reese" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] partial fix for Thinkpads and suspend |
| |
Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi Garst, > > "Garst R. Reese" <reese@isn.net> writes: > > > > Stephen, > > I sent the attached patch to apm linuxcare that you seem to think has > > already been applied to the kernel. I don't think so. I never sent it to > > Linus or the list, and have not seen it in any test6prex. > > The problem I addressed was that there was a cli() instead of an > > APM_DO_CLI > > in int suspend(void); > > > > I've been running with the patch I submitted to fix this problem for > > some time. > > Your solution to do an sti() in APM_DO_CLI seems quite ugly. I grant > > that we do not want to do a cli before suspending, but I could not find > > anybody else doing that, so just not doing is probably sufficient. > > I did NOT assume that your patch had been applied (I am the person behind > apm@linuxcare.com.au). What my patch does is to ensure that interrupts > are explicitly enabled whenever we do a BIOS call (including the BIOS call > to suspend the machine) rather than just assuming that interrupts were > enabled. This does work in my Thinkpad (admittedly a 600E). > > I do not think that my patch is ugly and, in fact, implements the > semantics of the CONFIG option even better than before. :-) > > Please try my patch ... Hmm, how does changing APM_DO_CLI fix the fact that in test5-pre2, an explicit cli() was issued? (in the function suspend at line 914). I do not understand how you avoid that cli. Garst -- beauty is in the eye ...
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |