On Mon, 28 Jul 2014, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:19:06AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > > Your system wakes up okay from suspend, but not from hibernation. Was
> > > > there ever any kernel version where USB wakeup from hibernation did
> > > > work?
> > >
> > > Any version before c1db30a2a79eb59997b13b8cabf2a50bea9f04e1. That very
> > > commit also happens to fix a far more severe bug during _suspend_ on my
> > > hardware, in return for this regression during hibernation.
> >
> > What happens with hibernation if you try the patch in
> >
> > http://marc.info/?l=linux-usb&m=140259672425512&w=2
> >
> > using both the vanilla kernel and one with commit c1db30a2a79e
> > reverted?
>
> Reverting c1db30a2a79e does fix hibernation issues (and brings back suspend
> breakage), the patch you mentioned above seems to have no effect whatsoever,
> with c1db30a2a79e reverted or not.
I don't get it. With that patch in that URL applied, the code added by
c1db30a2a79e doesn't do anything -- the
if ((temp & (RH_PS_PES | RH_PS_PSS)) ==
RH_PS_PES)
test will always be false, and so the following ohci_writel() will
never be called. You should be able to test that easily enough.
I suppose it's barely possible that the preceding ohci_readl() call
might have an effect. You can try experimenting with those two calls;
comment out the ohci_writel() and see what happens, then also comment
out the ohci_readl() and see what happens.
You might as well make these tests without that other patch applied, to
avoid confusion.
Alan Stern
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
