lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Apr]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [BISECTED] [REGRESSION] can't anymore even do a s2ram-s2disk-s2ram cycle on acer aspire 5720G
From
Date
On Thu, 2009-04-09 at 17:19 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday 09 April 2009, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-04-09 at 15:06 +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2009-04-07 at 17:24 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday 07 April 2009, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > > This is first time, I am actually happy about a regression....
> > > > >
> > > > > I have a notebook, aspire 5720G that fails to do two suspends to ram in
> > > > > row.
> > > > >
> > > > > for example I can do s2ram->s2disk->s2ram->...
> > > > > but can't s2ram->s2ram.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well that at least was the situation till now.
> > > > > Also there is no way to debug this - bios doesn't pass control back to
> > > > > linux on failed resume. I tried probably every guess I could come with.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now, after a commit a0d4922da2e4ccb0973095d8d29f36f6b1b5f703 which I
> > > > > finally bisected, I can't anymore do two suspends to ram at all,
> > > > > regardless of suspend to disk in between. Also bios doesn't pass control
> > > > > when resume fails.
> > > >
> > > > I wonder what happens if the in-between s2disk is in the "shutdown" mode.
> > > > Theoretically, it should work as a cold boot, so the second s2ram should work
> > > > in this case.
> > > >
> > > > > I actually did 3 bisects, as I had to find fixes to 2 more s2ram bugs
> > > > > that were fixed.
> > > > > the fixes are:
> > > > >
> > > > > a0e280e0f33f6c859a235fb69a875ed8f3420388
> > > > > 1e70c7f7a9d4a3d2cc78b40e1d7768d99cd79899
> > > >
> > > > Commit a0d4922da2e4ccb0973095d8d29f36f6b1b5f703 has been modified quite a bit
> > > > by some later commits due to regressions it introduced.
> > > >
> > > > > Now, why I am happy about this:
> > > > > It seems that a suspend cycle changes something that explodes on next
> > > > > resume. a s2disk cycle cleared this, but not anymore, thus the poison
> > > > > must be somehow connected to the
> > > > > a0d4922da2e4ccb0973095d8d29f36f6b1b5f703
> > > >
> > > > Hint: it would be a lot easier to read the message if you included the subjects
> > > > of the commits too. :-)
> > > >
> > > Sure, sorry ;-)
> > >
> > > > > PCI state?? I tried restoring it from saved file, (created on suspend)
> > > > > but this didn't help.
> > > > > (Only a single register, which looks like a clear or write register
> > > > > changed).
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Also this commits narrows down the search, now it is clear that this is
> > > > > usb related. No wonder bios pokes at usb on resume and stalls.....
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > It could even be connected to bios handoff, maybe we don't do that on
> > > > > resume?
> > > > >
> > > > > (Note: this regression is present all way to latest -git)
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure if we really should consider this as a regression. s2ram clearly
> > > > didn't work correctly on your machine before and the s2disk in between
> > > > is not really relevant here IMO.
> > > Yet, this allowed me at least lalf the time to do s2ram.
> > > s2disk eats battery, if I suspend the system for short time
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > What do you think?
> > > >
> > > > Well, not much apart from the observation that the problem with s2ram on your
> > > > machine is probably related to USB. In fact, on Intel chipsets there seem to
> > > > be some strange links between the USB controllers (most notably EHCI) and
> > > > the core chipset that don't appear to be well documented and this may be the
> > > > case in which they show up. Dunno.
> > >
> > > Sorry for late reply,
> > >
> > > I now semi-bisected, the change inside this patch.
> > >
> > > First, UHCI doesn't affect anything.
> > >
> > > Then, if I move 'late' suspend functions inside normal ones, everything
> > > returns works like it used to be (I need to retest this statement, I did
> > > other changes too).
> > Yep, just moving content of late suspend and content of early resume to
> > normal suspend/resume functions fixes this issue.
>
> If I understand correctly, you're referring to the USB controller suspend and
> resume callbacks, is that correct?


Yes exactly , EHCI controller more correctly.
I disabled UHCI completely in kernel config.


Best regards,
Maxim Levitsky



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-04-09 17:37    [W:0.054 / U:1.100 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site