On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 10:04:28AM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > From: Noth <[email protected]> > > Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 07:22:56 +0100 > > > > On 02/20/16 06:46, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > >> I'm using VAIO Z. Hibernation works, but my vaio also wakes back > > >> immediately. I have a diff to avoid this wakeup. Unhibernation works > > >> fine. > > >> > > >> The diff seems very bad. :) > > >> > > >> Index: sys/dev/acpi/acpi.c > > >> =================================================================== > > >> RCS file: /disk/cvs/openbsd/src/sys/dev/acpi/acpi.c,v > > >> retrieving revision 1.303 > > >> diff -u -p -r1.303 acpi.c > > >> --- sys/dev/acpi/acpi.c 14 Jan 2016 21:37:18 -0000 1.303 > > >> +++ sys/dev/acpi/acpi.c 21 Jan 2016 08:25:59 -0000 > > >> @@ -2048,6 +2048,7 @@ acpi_enable_wakegpes(struct acpi_softc * > > >> { > > >> struct acpi_wakeq *wentry; > > >> > > >> +return; > > >> SIMPLEQ_FOREACH(wentry, &sc->sc_wakedevs, q_next) { > > >> dnprintf(10, "%.4s(S%d) gpe %.2x\n", > > >> wentry->q_node->name, > > >> wentry->q_state, > > > That is a very interesting diff. Mike will probably remember this. > > > Was it Berlin? I think sebastia's Viao had a quirk where a wakeup gpe > > > was doing something wrong. > > > > > > That will assuredly break most thinkpads :) > > > > > > > > > > That patch works for me, thank you Masahiko. Looks like OpenBSD runs > > pretty well on this little laptop :) > > Next step in the debugging process would be to find out which of the > wake GPEs is actually responsible. >
I have a few reports of these sorts of things failing (eg, resuming immediately) in my inbox from the past. Every time I've tried to debug these, even when disabling all the GPEs, the machine still woke. Do you have a better idea? -ml
