Re: [patch] PM: suspend/resume debugging should depend on SOFTWARE_SUSPEND

2006-12-04 Thread Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
On Mon, 04 Dec 2006, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Sun 2006-12-03 16:40:04, Kyle Moffett wrote: > > On Nov 19, 2006, at 17:04:23, Christer Weinigel wrote: > > >With suspend-to-disk I can remove the battery (to put in a fresh > > >battery when traveling), try doing that with suspend-to-ram. > > > > My

Re: [patch] PM: suspend/resume debugging should depend on SOFTWARE_SUSPEND

2006-12-04 Thread Pavel Machek
On Sun 2006-12-03 16:40:04, Kyle Moffett wrote: > On Nov 19, 2006, at 17:04:23, Christer Weinigel wrote: > >With suspend-to-disk I can remove the battery (to put in a fresh > >battery when traveling), try doing that with suspend-to-ram. > > My PowerBook can do this with suspend-to-ram too; it ha

Re: [patch] PM: suspend/resume debugging should depend on SOFTWARE_SUSPEND

2006-12-03 Thread Kyle Moffett
On Nov 19, 2006, at 17:04:23, Christer Weinigel wrote: With suspend-to-disk I can remove the battery (to put in a fresh battery when traveling), try doing that with suspend-to-ram. My PowerBook can do this with suspend-to-ram too; it has an internal capacitor or battery of some sort which ch

Re: [patch] PM: suspend/resume debugging should depend on SOFTWARE_SUSPEND

2006-12-03 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Sunday, 26 November 2006 21:30, Robert Hancock wrote: > Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> btw, I have some code almost ready for sata_nv to add proper > >> suspend/resume support. Unfortunately I have trouble testing it, since > >> STR doesn't work on my machine since, guess what - the video doesn

Re: [rfc patch] Re: [patch] PM: suspend/resume debugging should depend on SOFTWARE_SUSPEND

2006-11-29 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 11:49 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > +#ifdef CONFIG_PM > > +static int serial_pnp_suspend(struct pnp_dev *dev, pm_message_t state) > > +{ > > + long line = (long)pnp_get_drvdata(dev); > > Please avoid adding long lines. (heh, I kill me) Ok. I also changed the place I g

Re: [rfc patch] Re: [patch] PM: suspend/resume debugging should depend on SOFTWARE_SUSPEND

2006-11-29 Thread Andrew Morton
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 11:30:31 +0100 Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 11:21 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > The serial console appears to be innocent. The suspend/resume methods > > > for my 16550A serial port aren't even being _called_, apparently because > > >

Re: [rfc patch] Re: [patch] PM: suspend/resume debugging should depend on SOFTWARE_SUSPEND

2006-11-29 Thread Pavel Machek
Hi! > On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 11:21 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > The serial console appears to be innocent. The suspend/resume methods > > > for my 16550A serial port aren't even being _called_, apparently because > > > pnp swiped ttyS0. > > (ahem, bad aim with mouse, resuming) > > Well, af

[rfc patch] Re: [patch] PM: suspend/resume debugging should depend on SOFTWARE_SUSPEND

2006-11-29 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 11:21 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > The serial console appears to be innocent. The suspend/resume methods > > for my 16550A serial port aren't even being _called_, apparently because > > pnp swiped ttyS0. (ahem, bad aim with mouse, resuming) Well, after further rummaging

Re: [patch] PM: suspend/resume debugging should depend on SOFTWARE_SUSPEND

2006-11-29 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 11:01 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Sun, 2006-11-26 at 05:53 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > On Sat, 2006-11-25 at 18:12 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > Hm, could you please file a bugzilla report regarding the serial console > > > for > > > the information of

Re: [patch] PM: suspend/resume debugging should depend on SOFTWARE_SUSPEND

2006-11-28 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Sun, 2006-11-26 at 05:53 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Sat, 2006-11-25 at 18:12 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > Hm, could you please file a bugzilla report regarding the serial console for > > the information of its maintainer(s)? > > Yeah, I'll rummage around a bit first though. Th

Re: [patch] PM: suspend/resume debugging should depend on SOFTWARE_SUSPEND

2006-11-27 Thread Stefan Seyfried
On Sun, Nov 26, 2006 at 01:11:33AM -0600, Robert Hancock wrote: > options seem to work, and vbetool appears to helpfully segfault on any > operation so that's out. Try this one: From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Fix failures on AMD64 This patch fixes at least some of the cases where vbetool segfa

Re: [patch] PM: suspend/resume debugging should depend on SOFTWARE_SUSPEND

2006-11-27 Thread Matthew Garrett
On Sun, Nov 26, 2006 at 02:30:15PM -0600, Robert Hancock wrote: > Yes, it's x86-64, with whatever version of vbetool comes with Fedora Core 5. Ought to be fixed in the next release of vbetool. The x86emu code in the current version is a touch broken, and nvidia bioses seem to trip it quite well

Re: [patch] PM: suspend/resume debugging should depend on SOFTWARE_SUSPEND

2006-11-26 Thread Pavel Machek
Hi! > > Hmm... how common are these machines? We are using unpatched kernel > > for suse10.2... OTOH we only support machines from the whitelist, all > > I've always said IDE and software suspend are unsafe. The more work I do > the more clearly this is/was the case. Well, there's unsafe as in

Re: [patch] PM: suspend/resume debugging should depend on SOFTWARE_SUSPEND

2006-11-26 Thread Robert Hancock
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: btw, I have some code almost ready for sata_nv to add proper suspend/resume support. Unfortunately I have trouble testing it, since STR doesn't work on my machine since, guess what - the video doesn't come back! It doesn't even take the monitor out of standby mode. None

Re: [patch] PM: suspend/resume debugging should depend on SOFTWARE_SUSPEND

2006-11-26 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Sunday, 26 November 2006 08:11, Robert Hancock wrote: > Alan wrote: > > Lots of other controllers don't work correctly on resume but thats much > > less of a problem and with UDMA misclocking generally turns into a CRC > > error storm and stop. > > > > Andrew has about 2/3rds of the bits I've d

Re: [patch] PM: suspend/resume debugging should depend on SOFTWARE_SUSPEND

2006-11-25 Thread Robert Hancock
Alan wrote: Lots of other controllers don't work correctly on resume but thats much less of a problem and with UDMA misclocking generally turns into a CRC error storm and stop. Andrew has about 2/3rds of the bits I've done now, will push the rest when I've done a little more testing/checking. At

Re: [patch] PM: suspend/resume debugging should depend on SOFTWARE_SUSPEND

2006-11-25 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Sat, 2006-11-25 at 18:12 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Hm, could you please file a bugzilla report regarding the serial console for > the information of its maintainer(s)? Yeah, I'll rummage around a bit first though. -Mike - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscr

Re: [patch] PM: suspend/resume debugging should depend on SOFTWARE_SUSPEND

2006-11-19 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > concept works anywhere that has a CMOS chip, so if somebody were to spend > > a few minutes testing it on x86-64 and others, it would work elsewhere > > too.. > > I can do that if someone gives me the code. Well, I actually _think_ it works al

Re: [patch] PM: suspend/resume debugging should depend on SOFTWARE_SUSPEND

2006-11-19 Thread Romano Giannetti
On Sun, 2006-11-19 at 19:55 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Sunday, 19 November 2006 19:21, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > On Sun, 19 Nov 2006, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > In fact that's up to 30 seconds on a modern box, usually less than that. > > > > Right. If the machine boots qui

Re: [patch] PM: suspend/resume debugging should depend on SOFTWARE_SUSPEND

2006-11-19 Thread Christer Weinigel
Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I never use SOFTWARE_SUSPEND, and I think the whole concept is totally > broken. > > Sane people use suspend-to-ram, and that's when you need the suspend and > resume debugging. > > Software-suspend is silly. I want my machine back in three seconds,

Re: [patch] PM: suspend/resume debugging should depend on SOFTWARE_SUSPEND

2006-11-19 Thread Nigel Cunningham
Hi Linus. On Sun, 2006-11-19 at 09:33 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Sun, 19 Nov 2006, Chuck Ebbert wrote: > > > > When doing 'make oldconfig' we should ask about suspend/resume > > debug features when SOFTWARE_SUSPEND is not enabled. > > That's wrong. > > I never use SOFTWARE_SUSPEND, and

Re: [patch] PM: suspend/resume debugging should depend on SOFTWARE_SUSPEND

2006-11-19 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Sunday, 19 November 2006 20:54, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Sun, 19 Nov 2006, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > because people point to the suspend-to-disk instead. > > > > Who they? > > Like you _just_ did. No, I didn't. It was referred to in the message that started this thread. I don

Re: [patch] PM: suspend/resume debugging should depend on SOFTWARE_SUSPEND

2006-11-19 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > because people point to the suspend-to-disk instead. > > Who they? Like you _just_ did. > > - enable PM_DEBUG, and PM_TRACE > > This only works on i386, no? Right now the trivial functions are only available on i386, yes. The concept wor

Re: [patch] PM: suspend/resume debugging should depend on SOFTWARE_SUSPEND

2006-11-19 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > Thanks for the tip, but it didn't work. It suspended instantly, and got > my hopes up (manually, SuSE says "not supported, go away"), but resume > still left me with an utterly dead box (minus flashing crud on display). Right. That's why we have PM

Re: [patch] PM: suspend/resume debugging should depend on SOFTWARE_SUSPEND

2006-11-19 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Sun, 2006-11-19 at 19:58 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Sunday, 19 November 2006 18:52, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > On Sun, 2006-11-19 at 09:33 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, 19 Nov 2006, Chuck Ebbert wrote: > > > > > > > > When doing 'make oldconfig' we should ask about s

Re: [patch] PM: suspend/resume debugging should depend on SOFTWARE_SUSPEND

2006-11-19 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Sunday, 19 November 2006 18:52, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Sun, 2006-11-19 at 09:33 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > On Sun, 19 Nov 2006, Chuck Ebbert wrote: > > > > > > When doing 'make oldconfig' we should ask about suspend/resume > > > debug features when SOFTWARE_SUSPEND is not enabled.

Re: [patch] PM: suspend/resume debugging should depend on SOFTWARE_SUSPEND

2006-11-19 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Sun, 2006-11-19 at 10:25 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Sun, 19 Nov 2006, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > > Here I am wishing I had the _opportunity_ to be sane. With my ATI X850 > > AGP card, I have no choices except swsusp or reboot. > > Try using regular VGA console, and letting X re-ini

Re: [patch] PM: suspend/resume debugging should depend on SOFTWARE_SUSPEND

2006-11-19 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Sunday, 19 November 2006 19:21, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Sun, 19 Nov 2006, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > In fact that's up to 30 seconds on a modern box, usually less than that. > > Right. If the machine boots quickly, it's fast. Of course, if the machine > boots quickly, you might as

Re: [patch] PM: suspend/resume debugging should depend on SOFTWARE_SUSPEND

2006-11-19 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > Here I am wishing I had the _opportunity_ to be sane. With my ATI X850 > AGP card, I have no choices except swsusp or reboot. Try using regular VGA console, and letting X re-initialize the card. It's worked for me on several machines (Mac Mini an

Re: [patch] PM: suspend/resume debugging should depend on SOFTWARE_SUSPEND

2006-11-19 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > In fact that's up to 30 seconds on a modern box, usually less than that. Right. If the machine boots quickly, it's fast. Of course, if the machine boots quickly, you might as well often just shut down and reboot. > And suspend-to-ram doesn't wo

Re: [patch] PM: suspend/resume debugging should depend on SOFTWARE_SUSPEND

2006-11-19 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Sun, 2006-11-19 at 09:33 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Sun, 19 Nov 2006, Chuck Ebbert wrote: > > > > When doing 'make oldconfig' we should ask about suspend/resume > > debug features when SOFTWARE_SUSPEND is not enabled. > > That's wrong. > > I never use SOFTWARE_SUSPEND, and I think th

Re: [patch] PM: suspend/resume debugging should depend on SOFTWARE_SUSPEND

2006-11-19 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Sunday, 19 November 2006 18:33, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Sun, 19 Nov 2006, Chuck Ebbert wrote: > > > > When doing 'make oldconfig' we should ask about suspend/resume > > debug features when SOFTWARE_SUSPEND is not enabled. > > That's wrong. > > I never use SOFTWARE_SUSPEND, and I think th

Re: [patch] PM: suspend/resume debugging should depend on SOFTWARE_SUSPEND

2006-11-19 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006, Chuck Ebbert wrote: > > When doing 'make oldconfig' we should ask about suspend/resume > debug features when SOFTWARE_SUSPEND is not enabled. That's wrong. I never use SOFTWARE_SUSPEND, and I think the whole concept is totally broken. Sane people use suspend-to-ram, and t

Re: [patch] PM: suspend/resume debugging should depend on SOFTWARE_SUSPEND

2006-11-19 Thread Pavel Machek
Hi! > When doing 'make oldconfig' we should ask about suspend/resume > debug features when SOFTWARE_SUSPEND is not enabled. These are suspend-to-ram debugging features, mostly, so no, they should not depend on software suspend. NAK. > Signed-off-by: Chuck Ebbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > --- 2.

[patch] PM: suspend/resume debugging should depend on SOFTWARE_SUSPEND

2006-11-19 Thread Chuck Ebbert
When doing 'make oldconfig' we should ask about suspend/resume debug features when SOFTWARE_SUSPEND is not enabled. Signed-off-by: Chuck Ebbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- 2.6.19-rc6-32.orig/kernel/power/Kconfig +++ 2.6.19-rc6-32/kernel/power/Kconfig @@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ config PM_DEBUG config DISABL