On 7/28/07, Jan Dittmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andreas Schwab wrote:
> > Jan Dittmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Len Brown wrote:
> >> FATAL: drivers/acpi/button: sizeof(struct acpi_device_id)=20 is not a
> >> modulo of the size of section __mod_acpi_device_table=144.
> > Are you cross-
On Mon 2007-07-30 21:09:33, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote:
>
> >On Saturday 28 July 2007 12:55, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> >>So I think the real issue is that we allow that
> >>"suspend_devices_and_enter()" code to be compiled without HOTPLUG_CPU in
> >>the first
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote:
On Saturday 28 July 2007 12:55, Linus Torvalds wrote:
So I think the real issue is that we allow that
"suspend_devices_and_enter()" code to be compiled without HOTPLUG_CPU in
the first place. It's not supposed to work that way.
I don't see how CONFIG_HOT
On Saturday 28 July 2007 12:55, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So I think the real issue is that we allow that
> "suspend_devices_and_enter()" code to be compiled without HOTPLUG_CPU in
> the first place. It's not supposed to work that way.
I don't see how CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU justifies its own existenc
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> OK, I'll prepare a patch to introduce CONFIG_SUSPEND, but that will require
> quite a bit of (compilation) testing on different architectures.
Sure. I'm not too worried, the fallout should be of the trivial kind.
Also, mind basing it on the (i
On Saturday, 28 July 2007 18:55, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > And it's the *top*level* code that selects HOTPLUG_CPU. Through
> > SUSPEND_SMP (which will select HOTPLUG_CPU) and SOFTWARE_SUSPEND.
>
> In other words, the problem seems to be that
>
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> And it's the *top*level* code that selects HOTPLUG_CPU. Through
> SUSPEND_SMP (which will select HOTPLUG_CPU) and SOFTWARE_SUSPEND.
In other words, the problem seems to be that
kernel/power/main.c:
suspend_devices_and_ent
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote:
>
> That three-liner will crash ACPI+SMP-HOTPLUG_CPU kernels on resume.
Explain that to me.
There should *be* no resume.
ACPI doesn't suspend/resume on its own, I hope.
It is all done by the top-level suspend/resume code, not by ACPI. ACPI is
a pure hel
Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Jan Dittmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Len Brown wrote:
>>> Hi Linus,
>>>
>>> please pull from:
>>>
>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lenb/linux-acpi-2.6.git
>>> release
>> This seems to break ia64 defconfig:
>>
>> Building modules, stage 2.
>> M
On Thursday 26 July 2007 16:55, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Anyway, I think the ACPI problem really is as trivial as the following
> three-liner removal fix. If the user doesn't want suspend, ACPI shouldn't
> force it on him.
...
> - # for sleep
> - select HOTPLUG_CPU if X86 && SMP
> - s
Jan Dittmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Len Brown wrote:
>> Hi Linus,
>>
>> please pull from:
>>
>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lenb/linux-acpi-2.6.git release
>
> This seems to break ia64 defconfig:
>
> Building modules, stage 2.
> MODPOST 157 modules
> FATAL: drivers/acp
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't have an idea how this happens, but it sounds like an alignment
> issue:
>
> sizeof(struct acpi_device_id)=20
This is wrong. The structure has 24 bytes (including 7(!) bytes of
padding).
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 06:25:12PM +0200, Thomas Renninger wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 08:26 +0200, Jan Dittmer wrote:
> > Len Brown wrote:
> > > Hi Linus,
> > >
> > > please pull from:
> > >
> > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lenb/linux-acpi-2.6.git
> > > release
> >
> > T
On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 08:26 +0200, Jan Dittmer wrote:
> Len Brown wrote:
> > Hi Linus,
> >
> > please pull from:
> >
> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lenb/linux-acpi-2.6.git
> > release
>
> This seems to break ia64 defconfig:
>
>Building modules, stage 2.
>MODPOST 157
Len Brown wrote:
Hi Linus,
please pull from:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lenb/linux-acpi-2.6.git release
This seems to break ia64 defconfig:
Building modules, stage 2.
MODPOST 157 modules
FATAL: drivers/acpi/button: sizeof(struct acpi_device_id)=20 is not a modulo of
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> My point is we have ACPI dependent on PM, so if you want ACPI, you end
> up with all of the STR stuff built in, which is what you don't like (if I
> understand that correctly). If we have CONFIG_SUSPEND, you'll be able to
> choose ACPI alone. :-
On Thursday, 26 July 2007 21:57, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > Hmm, perhaps we should introduce a CONFIG_SUSPEND and change
> > CONFIG_SOFTWARE_SUSPEND into CONFIG_HIBERNATION, both depending on
> > CONFIG_PM?
> >
> > There's quite some code need
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> Hmm, perhaps we should introduce a CONFIG_SUSPEND and change
> CONFIG_SOFTWARE_SUSPEND into CONFIG_HIBERNATION, both depending on
> CONFIG_PM?
>
> There's quite some code needed only for suspend compiled in when CONFIG_PM is
> set ...
Sounds li
On Thursday, 26 July 2007 19:45, Len Brown wrote:
> On Thursday 26 July 2007 02:55, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote:
> > >
> > > Feel free to share what you know about the benefits vs. the costs
> > > of maintaining CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP as a build option.
> >
> >
Len Brown wrote:
> On Thursday 26 July 2007 06:07, Gabriel C wrote:
>
>>> If you feel that your system has been degraded
>>> because it now includes what used to be excluded under
>>> CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP=n, please let me know how.
>> Even if I want to SUSPEND* to I can't on my Dell Precision 530
>
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
how about the fact that Linus found the problem becouse his system didn't work
right?
No, it works, it just forces me to use a configuration that I'm not
personally interested in on that particular machine.
I tend to like
> > I was actually asking how somebody's _system_ has been degraded
> > by this change -- but I haven't got an objective answer to that one yet.
>
> how about the fact that Linus found the problem becouse his system didn't
> work right?
I guess I missed that message. What system didn't work ri
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote:
>
> Can you be specific about how much additional "bloat" your system
> must endure with CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP=y
All of CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU.
Len, this is not about ACPI code. This is about CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU. Which
I don't want. And which you forced on me.
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> how about the fact that Linus found the problem becouse his system didn't work
> right?
No, it works, it just forces me to use a configuration that I'm not
personally interested in on that particular machine.
I tend to like using minimal kerne
On Thursday 26 July 2007 06:07, Gabriel C wrote:
> > If you feel that your system has been degraded
> > because it now includes what used to be excluded under
> > CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP=n, please let me know how.
>
> Even if I want to SUSPEND* to I can't on my Dell Precision 530
> boxes ,
> SCSI is
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote:
On Thursday 26 July 2007 02:55, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote:
If you feel that your system has been degraded
because it now includes what used to be excluded under
CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP=n, please let me know how.
I feel that
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote:
>
> I was actually asking how somebody's _system_ has been degraded
> by this change -- but I haven't got an objective answer to that one yet.
According to that logic, we should always compile *everything* in.
Do you see the problem?
And can you realize t
On Thursday 26 July 2007 02:55, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote:
> >
> > Feel free to share what you know about the benefits vs. the costs
> > of maintaining CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP as a build option.
>
> Why don't you just make CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP dependent on SOFTWARE_SU
Len Brown wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 July 2007 22:20, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday 25 July 2007 14:48, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>>
... ACPI now seems to select CPU hotplug. Why?
>>> ACPI=y SMP=y systems require SUSPEND_SMP=y for system sleep
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 July 2007 14:48, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> > ... ACPI now seems to select CPU hotplug. Why?
>
> ACPI=y SMP=y systems require SUSPEND_SMP=y for system sleep support,
> and that requires HOTPLUG_CPU=y.
.. and why do you think I want system
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote:
>
> Feel free to share what you know about the benefits vs. the costs
> of maintaining CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP as a build option.
Why don't you just make CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP dependent on SOFTWARE_SUSPEND
and STR?
> If you feel that your system has been degraded
>
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote:
CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP. Not trivial for a user to select it
when it doesn't even appear on the menu. It doesn't appear
because CONFIG_SUSPEND_SMP isn't enabled, but that doesn't
appear either -- because CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU isn't selected.
so have something lik
On Wednesday 25 July 2007 22:20, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday 25 July 2007 14:48, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> >> ... ACPI now seems to select CPU hotplug. Why?
> >
> > ACPI=y SMP=y systems require SUSPEND_SMP=y for system sleep support,
> > an
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote:
On Wednesday 25 July 2007 14:48, Linus Torvalds wrote:
... ACPI now seems to select CPU hotplug. Why?
ACPI=y SMP=y systems require SUSPEND_SMP=y for system sleep support,
and that requires HOTPLUG_CPU=y.
Note that ACPI=y SMP=n systems do not need it,
an
On Wednesday 25 July 2007 14:48, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> ... ACPI now seems to select CPU hotplug. Why?
ACPI=y SMP=y systems require SUSPEND_SMP=y for system sleep support,
and that requires HOTPLUG_CPU=y.
Note that ACPI=y SMP=n systems do not need it,
and thus will not select HOTPLUG_CPU=y
>
On Wednesday 25 July 2007 12:49, Tino Keitel wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 12:38:50 -0400, Len Brown wrote:
> > Len Brown (5):
> > ACPI: Kconfig: CONFIG_ACPI_PROCFS now defaults to N
>
> Hi,
>
> where can I find the information in /proc/acpi/battery and
> /proc/acpi/processor without pro
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote:
>
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lenb/linux-acpi-2.6.git release
>
> Fixes regressions -- a build failure, an oops, some dmesg spam.
> Also fixes some D-state issues and adds ACPI module auto-loading.
> Yes, I'd hoped to get the last two in
On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 12:38:50 -0400, Len Brown wrote:
> Len Brown (5):
> ACPI: Kconfig: CONFIG_ACPI_PROCFS now defaults to N
Hi,
where can I find the information in /proc/acpi/battery and
/proc/acpi/processor without procfs?
Regards,
Tino
Please CC: me in replies.
-
To unsubscribe fro
Hi Linus,
please pull from:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lenb/linux-acpi-2.6.git release
Fixes regressions -- a build failure, an oops, some dmesg spam.
Also fixes some D-state issues and adds ACPI module auto-loading.
Yes, I'd hoped to get the last two in before rc1.
I'm hopef
39 matches
Mail list logo
