Hi Alan,
On 2/26/07, Alan Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>
> That looks fine. Below is that actual patch I propose for 2.6.20. Can
> you please try it out and make sure that it really does fix the problem?
> Be sure to remove the test patch first, since this wants to go on top of
> plain
On 2/25/07, Alan Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2007, Guilherme Salgado wrote:
>
> > I had some problems with the 2.6.20 kernel on my distribution and so I
> > wasn't able to test the patch for some time. Fortunately, everything
> > is working
Hi,
On 2/14/07, Alan Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2007, Guilherme Salgado wrote:
[...]
> > so I did the
> > changes manually and used upper case characters on the message passed
> > to dev_info(), to make sure the new module was loaded correctly,
Hi Alan,
On 2/13/07, Alan Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Guilherme Salgado wrote:
>
> > > On Thu, 11 Jan 2007, Jon Smirl wrote:
> > >
> > [...]
> > >
> > > Here we see a resume that failed. The key indicator is the 0
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2007, Jon Smirl wrote:
>
[...]
>
> Here we see a resume that failed. The key indicator is the 0x1000 bit in
> the portsc value; it means the port is still suspended even after it was
> supposed to have resumed. This is the Intel hardware-resume bug I
> described earlier. I have
