Michael Ellerman <m...@ellerman.id.au> writes: > Nathan Lynch <nath...@linux.ibm.com> writes: >> We don't completely account for the possible return codes for >> ibm,suspend-me. Add definitions for these. >> >> Signed-off-by: Nathan Lynch <nath...@linux.ibm.com> >> --- >> arch/powerpc/include/asm/rtas.h | 7 ++++++- >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/rtas.h >> b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/rtas.h >> index 55f9a154c95d..f060181a0d32 100644 >> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/rtas.h >> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/rtas.h >> @@ -23,11 +23,16 @@ >> #define RTAS_RMOBUF_MAX (64 * 1024) >> >> /* RTAS return status codes */ >> -#define RTAS_NOT_SUSPENDABLE -9004 >> #define RTAS_BUSY -2 /* RTAS Busy */ >> #define RTAS_EXTENDED_DELAY_MIN 9900 >> #define RTAS_EXTENDED_DELAY_MAX 9905 >> >> +/* statuses specific to ibm,suspend-me */ >> +#define RTAS_SUSPEND_ABORTED 9000 /* Suspension aborted */ > > This made me ... pause. > > But it really is positive 9000, I checked PAPR.
Yes, 9000 falls within the "vendor-specific success codes" range in the RTAS status value table. I guess aborting a suspend is operator-initiated and it's not considered an error condition from that point of view.
