lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Aug]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] SATA / AHCI: Do not play with the link PM during suspend to RAM
Date
On Friday, August 27, 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 24, 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 24, 2010, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > On 08/23/2010 08:58 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > On Monday, August 23, 2010, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > >> Hello, sorry about the delay.
> > > >>
> > > >> On 08/19/2010 06:23 PM, Stephan Diestelhorst wrote:
> > > >>> It says "max_performance", I have not touched anyhting. So it has been
> > > >>> like that all the time. Would this explain why your patch did not show
> > > >>> the debug printout?
> > > >>
> > > >> Hmm... okay. Yeah, if you haven't been using IPM at all, there won't
> > > >> be any debug messages but at the same time the posted patch should
> > > >> have had the same effect as Rafael's patch as IPM path isn't traveled
> > > >> at all. Can you please check the followings?
> > > >>
> > > >> * You're actually running the correct patched kernel and modules. It
> > > >> probably is a good idea to add a printk message. ie. Apply the
> > > >> patch and add a printk() in ata_host_request_pm() in libata-core.c
> > > >> and make sure the debug messages appears.
> > > >>
> > > >> * Rafael's patch actually fixes the problem. If you haven't been
> > > >> using IPM at all, Rafael's patch and mine should behave exactly the
> > > >> same (ie. no IPM operation at all during suspend/resume). It could
> > > >> be that you're seeing a different issue.
> > > >>
> > > >> Rafael, can you please test my patch and see how your case behaves?
> > > >
> > > > This one: http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/8/5/328 ?
> > >
> > > Yeap, that one. I can prep a test git branch if necessary.
> >
> > No need to, but it's going to take a few days to verify on my box.
>
> Well, no luck. I was able to reproduce the issue on my box with this patch
> applied on top of 2.6.32-rc2.

2.6.36-rc2 that is.

> Which probably means that the link power management is not really involved
> here and seems to turn up this statement:
>
> rc = ata_host_request_pm(host, mesg, 0, ATA_EHI_QUIET, 1);
>
> in ata_host_suspend() as the culprit.
>
> Does it make sense?

Thanks,
Rafael


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-08-27 01:51    [W:0.117 / U:0.352 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site