Re: [ACPI] Re: [BKPATCH] ACPI for 2.6.12-rc1
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 02:09:00PM +0800, Yu, Luming wrote: > On Tuesday 29 March 2005 16:13, Romano Giannetti wrote: > > This is to report an issue with 2.6.11 and ACPI battery/ac. The resume is: > > acpi battery with preemptive kernel do not work, while the same kernel > > with no preempt works ok. I have tried to collect all the possible info; > > tell me if you need something more. > > > > The details: > > > > The working kernel is 2.6.11 with the patch from the acpi-devel list to > > fix acpi keys (not working otherwise). See for a description > > http://bugme.osdl.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4124 > > If you can find AE_AML_BUFFER_LIMIT in your long, then, it should be > interpreter bug. please see http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4150 > Otherwise, maybe it is related to EC driver. I am not sure if I understood. If I do (0)% grep AE_AML_BUFFER_LIMIT dmesg.txt (1)% I have nothing like that in syslog, either, so it should be another thing. Hmmm... I have "scheduling in atomic" errors, when resuming with preemptive kernel, so maybe it's related with http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=11129317 The errors are: scheduling while atomic: really_suspend/0x0001/4624 [] schedule+0x467/0x520 [] __mod_timer+0x1c5/0x1f0 [] schedule_timeout+0x5d/0xb0 [] process_timeout+0x0/0x10 [] msleep+0x2f/0x40 [] pci_set_power_state+0x190/0x1d0 [] pci_enable_device_bars+0x18/0x40 [] pci_enable_device+0x1f/0x40 [] snd_via82xx_resume+0x1c/0x170 [snd_via82xx] [] pci_restore_state+0x39/0x50 [] snd_card_pci_resume+0x49/0x76 [snd] [] pci_device_resume+0x2c/0x40 [] dpm_resume+0xa8/0xb0 [] device_resume+0x11/0x20 [] finish+0x8/0x40 [] pm_suspend_disk+0x75/0xc0 [] enter_state+0x86/0x90 [] software_suspend+0xf/0x20 [] acpi_system_write_sleep+0x6a/0x84 [] vfs_write+0x14c/0x160 [] sys_write+0x51/0x80 [] sysenter_past_esp+0x52/0x75 ...and more, you can find them all in http://www.dea.icai.upco.es/romano/linux/br/acpi-preempt.txt Could this be related to the fact that in 2.6.12-rc1 software suspend stopped to work? Maybe some bad interaction between acpi code and swsusp? Moreover, if you can, can you point me to some documentation on how to use "debug_level" and "debug_layer" to help debugging? Thanks! Romano -- Romano Giannetti - Univ. Pontificia Comillas (Madrid, Spain) Electronic Engineer - phone +34 915 422 800 ext 2416 fax +34 915 596 569 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [ACPI] Re: [BKPATCH] ACPI for 2.6.12-rc1
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 02:09:00PM +0800, Yu, Luming wrote: On Tuesday 29 March 2005 16:13, Romano Giannetti wrote: This is to report an issue with 2.6.11 and ACPI battery/ac. The resume is: acpi battery with preemptive kernel do not work, while the same kernel with no preempt works ok. I have tried to collect all the possible info; tell me if you need something more. The details: The working kernel is 2.6.11 with the patch from the acpi-devel list to fix acpi keys (not working otherwise). See for a description http://bugme.osdl.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4124 If you can find AE_AML_BUFFER_LIMIT in your long, then, it should be interpreter bug. please see http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4150 Otherwise, maybe it is related to EC driver. I am not sure if I understood. If I do (0)% grep AE_AML_BUFFER_LIMIT dmesg.txt (1)% I have nothing like that in syslog, either, so it should be another thing. Hmmm... I have scheduling in atomic errors, when resuming with preemptive kernel, so maybe it's related with http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=11129317 The errors are: scheduling while atomic: really_suspend/0x0001/4624 [c0396007] schedule+0x467/0x520 [c0121035] __mod_timer+0x1c5/0x1f0 [c0396acd] schedule_timeout+0x5d/0xb0 [c0121ac0] process_timeout+0x0/0x10 [c0121eaf] msleep+0x2f/0x40 [c024b080] pci_set_power_state+0x190/0x1d0 [c024b1c8] pci_enable_device_bars+0x18/0x40 [c024b20f] pci_enable_device+0x1f/0x40 [d0ccf64c] snd_via82xx_resume+0x1c/0x170 [snd_via82xx] [c024b199] pci_restore_state+0x39/0x50 [d0cacc79] snd_card_pci_resume+0x49/0x76 [snd] [c024d36c] pci_device_resume+0x2c/0x40 [c02c79a8] dpm_resume+0xa8/0xb0 [c02c79c1] device_resume+0x11/0x20 [c0135268] finish+0x8/0x40 [c01353c5] pm_suspend_disk+0x75/0xc0 [c0133786] enter_state+0x86/0x90 [c013379f] software_suspend+0xf/0x20 [c0289d9a] acpi_system_write_sleep+0x6a/0x84 [c015835c] vfs_write+0x14c/0x160 [c0158441] sys_write+0x51/0x80 [c01032b9] sysenter_past_esp+0x52/0x75 ...and more, you can find them all in http://www.dea.icai.upco.es/romano/linux/br/acpi-preempt.txt Could this be related to the fact that in 2.6.12-rc1 software suspend stopped to work? Maybe some bad interaction between acpi code and swsusp? Moreover, if you can, can you point me to some documentation on how to use debug_level and debug_layer to help debugging? Thanks! Romano -- Romano Giannetti - Univ. Pontificia Comillas (Madrid, Spain) Electronic Engineer - phone +34 915 422 800 ext 2416 fax +34 915 596 569 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [ACPI] Re: [BKPATCH] ACPI for 2.6.12-rc1
On Tuesday 29 March 2005 16:13, Romano Giannetti wrote: > This is to report an issue with 2.6.11 and ACPI battery/ac. The resume is: > acpi battery with preemptive kernel do not work, while the same kernel > with no preempt works ok. I have tried to collect all the possible info; > tell me if you need something more. > > The details: > > The working kernel is 2.6.11 with the patch from the acpi-devel list to > fix acpi keys (not working otherwise). See for a description > http://bugme.osdl.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4124 If you can find AE_AML_BUFFER_LIMIT in your long, then, it should be interpreter bug. please see http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4150 Otherwise, maybe it is related to EC driver. -- Thanks, Luming - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [ACPI] Re: [BKPATCH] ACPI for 2.6.12-rc1
On Tuesday 29 March 2005 16:13, Romano Giannetti wrote: This is to report an issue with 2.6.11 and ACPI battery/ac. The resume is: acpi battery with preemptive kernel do not work, while the same kernel with no preempt works ok. I have tried to collect all the possible info; tell me if you need something more. The details: The working kernel is 2.6.11 with the patch from the acpi-devel list to fix acpi keys (not working otherwise). See for a description http://bugme.osdl.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4124 If you can find AE_AML_BUFFER_LIMIT in your long, then, it should be interpreter bug. please see http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4150 Otherwise, maybe it is related to EC driver. -- Thanks, Luming - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [ACPI] Re: [BKPATCH] ACPI for 2.6.12-rc1
Andrew Morton wrote: Romano Giannetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Could I humble advocating pushing the patch http://bugme.osdl.org/attachment.cgi?id=4516=view ,please? It fixed a very bad regression in hotkey event from 2.6.9... What bug number is that actually attached to? http://bugme.osdl.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3851 There seems to be no way to go backwards from the URL. search for id=4516 on Description/Comment: on ACPI with all componenets and all status . thanks, - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [ACPI] Re: [BKPATCH] ACPI for 2.6.12-rc1
Andrew Morton wrote: Romano Giannetti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Could I humble advocating pushing the patch http://bugme.osdl.org/attachment.cgi?id=4516action=view ,please? It fixed a very bad regression in hotkey event from 2.6.9... What bug number is that actually attached to? http://bugme.osdl.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3851 There seems to be no way to go backwards from the URL. search for id=4516 on Description/Comment: on ACPI with all componenets and all status . thanks, - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
