On 13 June 2011 19:00, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> cam a fedora user, confirms that patch fixes the locks-ups
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=697157#c26
>
> We are waiting for fix now :-)
Cool.
The problem is, the initial modification and subsequent changes to the
powersave functio
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 2:01 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> I'm happy to submit a patch to undo that particular change but I'm not
> sure if it'll -break- things for other people. :)
I was wondering if it would be a pragmatic approach to let people turn
off APSM somehow. During testing I tried th
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 09:01:57PM +0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On 13 June 2011 19:00, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
>
> > cam a fedora user, confirms that patch fixes the locks-ups
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=697157#c26
> >
> > We are waiting for fix now :-)
>
> Cool.
>
> The pr
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 6:50 PM, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 09:01:57PM +0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>> On 13 June 2011 19:00, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
>>
>> > cam a fedora user, confirms that patch fixes the locks-ups
>> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=697157#c
I think the problem on these laptops is that -disabling- the APSM bits
causes some systems to hang.
That's what the commit earlier in the year did - it disabled those
bits by default. Later code then enabled those bits only on poweron,
and disabled them on suspend. My dirty patch just has them ena
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 07:10:56PM +0530, Mohammed Shafi wrote:
> > I see this commit in 2.6.39, missed in 2.6.38 and 2.6.35 currently.
> > Is possible this is the fix which do not break other things?
>
> hi,
> no, this fix only affects AR9280 and it does not affects AR9285.
That could be another
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 07:10:56PM +0530, Mohammed Shafi wrote:
>> > I see this commit in 2.6.39, missed in 2.6.38 and 2.6.35 currently.
>> > Is possible this is the fix which do not break other things?
>>
>> hi,
>> no, this fix only affe
On 14 June 2011 19:44, Mohammed Shafi wrote:
> I had verified with the internal code base whether this is being done,
> unfortunately no and at least I had tested this patch in my lenovo
> T400 machine it did not cause any issue. this might fix the issue for
> the specific platform but I am not s
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 19:47:35 +0800
Adrian Chadd wrote:
> I don't have any new thoughts, no. I think it's more likely something
> to do with how the bus is being setup, how APSM is being used, how
> power saving in general is handled, quirks of that chipset (all the
> laptops with problems have be
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 08:02:54AM +0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> I think the problem on these laptops is that -disabling- the APSM bits
> causes some systems to hang.
It is interesting if below patch works, people who can reproduce the
problem please give it a try. Except testing, I'm also interest
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 06:18:58PM +0200, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 08:02:54AM +0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> > I think the problem on these laptops is that -disabling- the APSM bits
> > causes some systems to hang.
>
> It is interesting if below patch works, people who can
11 matches
Mail list logo
